Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
(By Order)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

ROSS AND CROMARTY (COASTAL WATERS POLLUTION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered.

Amendment made: in schedule, section 2, page 3, line 19, leave out
while solely engaged in the catching of fish
and insert
principally engaged in fishing".—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

To be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Green Pound

1. Miss Richardson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what obligations he has entered into concerning devaluation of the green pound at the next EEC price determination.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): None, Sir.

Miss Richardson: I find it difficult to understand that answer because, in agreeing to the present devaluation, does it not follow that there is a commitment for a further devaluation? How does that fit in with the Tory Party manifesto commitment?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady is mistaken. If there had been a special green pound devaluation on pigmeat, a further devaluation in other commodities would have followed. However, as there was no special devaluation, that no longer applies.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that pig farmers in Staffordshire are particularly pleased with the result of the last devaluation, but that the true revival of the pig producing industry in Staffordshire, and probably in the rest of the country, will not come about unless an extra effort is made and there is a further devaluation, particularly in the pigmeat sector?

Mr. Walker: It has to be appreciated that there has been an improvement. Four months ago the positive MCAs in pigmeat were at 8 per cent., and they are now down to almost 5 per cent. There are considerable problems in the industry, but I do not believe that there is great scope for further devaluation. We have to concentrate much more on the processing and marketing problems in the industry.

Mr. Mason: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, on the question of butter prices, he has misled the House and, indeed, the British housewife? To what extent, since his last price deter- mination, have butter prices come down in the shops? As a 5 per cent. devalution increases butter prices by 3·5p per pound and there have been two devaluations this year, was it not a false promise to make?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I misled the House when I said that butter prices would come down by 6p. I checked butter prices this morning. Tesco's New Zealand butter has come down by 7p, Fine Fare's English butter has come down by between 7p and 10p, Sainsbury's butter—I agree—has come down by 6p, Associated Dairies' Irish butter has come down by 7p and the Co-op reductions vary between 6p and 10p around the country.

Mr. Mason: In view of the two devaluations to which I referred, which should increase the price of butter by 6·10p, how long will those reductions last?

Mr. Walker: The difference between our two parties is that when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Cabinet that Cabinet agreed to a 5 per cent. devaluation with no increase in the butter subsidy. We have obtained a butter subsidy that pays for both his devaluation and mine.

Milk Marketing Board

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will meet next the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am in frequent contact with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board but I have no specific plans for a meeting at present.

Mr. Goodlad: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he discuss the arrangements that were recently agreed in Brussels? Does he accept that the butter subsidy and the arrangements for increased payments to milk producers have acted as a direct stimulus to domestic production and have been much welcomed, for example, in my constituency of Cheshire? Will he discuss with the chairman the arrangements that will be entered into after the sheep-meat and potato agreements have been finalised, when there will be a threat from imported milk? Will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked three supplementary questions. Hon. Members should confine themselves to one supplementary question, and I hope that future questions will be briefer.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have given help to the problems of the Milk Marketing Board. As to future pressures on the board after current agreements, I am glad to be able to say that we expect the regulations concerning the board to be approved within the next few days.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister aware that more than 1,000 dairy producers will be leaving the industry in Wales at the end of the month? Can he give us an assurance that he will safe-

guard the interests of the efficient dairy producers in this country by persuading his counterparts in Europe to reform the CAP so that efficient dairy producers in this country are not subsidising the inefficient producers in Europe?

Mr. Walker: Yes. That is a basic element of our approach to the CAP, particularly in regard to the problems of milk producers. That is why I rejected the Commission's proposals on the co-responsibility levy.

Mr. Dorrell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his stand against the Commission's proposals on the co-responsibility levy was widely welcomed throughout the dairy industry and will contribute to a significant increase in confidence in the industry?

Mr. Walker: It was vital for British dairy producers and for British agriculture as a whole that a scheme which positively discriminated against this country should be avoided.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Body: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish his proposals for the radical reform of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Peter Walker: Improvements in the CAP will have to be pursued as opportunity offers in negotiation with other member States. But I shall of course keep the House informed of progress.

Mr. Body: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to reaffirm that it is the firm intention of the Government to insist upon a radical reform of the CAP?

Mr. Walker: Yes. The two biggest problems in the policy are surpluses in milk and sugar. The autumn months will be very much taken up by the Commission's proposals for trying to reduce the substantial sugar quota which is in operation. If we can tackle those matters effectively, we shall bring about a transformation over the coming period.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that I checked with Sainsbury's about the price of butter this morning and was told that the reduction was 2p or 3p a pound? Is he sure that he is not misleading the House?

Mr. Walker: I am certain. Prices in all the stores were checked this morning. English butter at Sainsbury's is down by 6p a pound. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the exact prices for half a pound of butter. English butter at Sainsbury's was 36½p on the date on which the subsidy came in, and it is now 33½p.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over the past few years we have had some very good years for wine, and that this year looks as though it will also be a very good one for wine? That will produce lakes from our Community partners. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that the producers of industrial alcohol in this country are protected from the EEC regulations that allow wine growers to spill over into the industrial sector and affect employment and downstream products in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker: The point made by the hon. Gentleman is of immense importance to British industry and a number of constituencies. On the agenda for the September meeting of the Council is a regime not just for wine but for the whole alcohol industry. Obviously I shall be looking after the interests of British companies in those negotiations.

European Community (Food Surpluses)

Mr. Jim Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the increases in EEC structural surpluses, product by product, as a result of the recent decision on common agricultural prices.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The average increase in agricultural prices is far below the general level of cost increases, and should not add to EEC surpluses.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that that was a very evasive reply and perhaps indicates that he and his right hon. Friend are not yet fully aware of the effect that the latest price increases will have on structural surpluses? Does the Minister accept that if he and his colleagues mean what they say about a radical restructuring of the CAP, a price freeze later this year, and certainly next year, should be the first step in that direction?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that there was a price freeze on the commodity that is most in surplus. The overall price increase of 1·2 per cent. is far below any increase under the previous Government. In that respect we have demonstrated that we are prepared to tackle the problem at the root for the first time.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that surpluses can be misleading, and will he explain to Labour Members that they need to be looked at in terms of weeks' supply? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that beef production is down and there could be a shortage? Will he continue to protect the consumer by encouraging home production?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. If we take the example of cereals, the surplus over recent years has varied from as much as seven weeks' supply to as little as one week's supply. If stocks fall below one week's supply there is great danger that the consumer will suffer, through high prices.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister tell us the size of the beet sugar mountain, and will he make sure that that mountain will not be used to imperil the future of cane sugar imports to this country and our cane refineries?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One of the problems with beet sugar is that decisions on this year's prices were not taken until the crop was in the ground. We should like to have seen action on quotas, and we intend to follow that through, as we have said publicly, in the autumn. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in cane sugar and he knows that, under the agreement, we are continuing imports from ACP countries.

Mr. Crowther: Is the Minister aware that there appears to be a difference of opinion between the view expressed by his right hon. Friend that the new deal on farm prices, whatever it may do to surpluses, will at least reduce the British contribution to the EEC budget and the view of others, including, I understand, the Commission, that it will increase our contribution? If his right hon. Friend is so certain that he is right, will the Minister ask him to undertake to resign if he turns out to be wrong?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I can say categorically that the price package that we achieved will reduce the net contribution of the United Kingdom by about £30 million. I know that that may be unpalatable to the hon. Gentleman, but facts are unapalatable sometimes.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends next to meet the president of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will meet next the president of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the president of the National Farmers Union frequently, but have no specific plans at present for a further meeting.

Mr. Temple-Morris: When my right hon. Friend next meets the president, will he welcome the firm rejection by the Northfield committee of land nationalisation on agricultural grounds—something which, on successive occasions, his predecessor was never able or willing to do? Will he further consider, not necessarily following the Northfield committee's proposals on the subject, giving young people a start in farming? What is his approach to that matter?

Mr. Walker: Obviously I welcome the Northfield report. One expected that a group of people looking at the problem intelligently would conclude that the nationalisation of land was not the answer. The second part of my hon. Friend's question is a matter that we are considering. We are looking at the recommendations of the Northfield committee and having talks with the NFU and others about how we can improve the potentialities for young people entering the industry.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend confident that, in view of the recent 5 per cent. devaluation and the increase in the value of the pound, he will be able, when he next meets Mr. Butler, to establish common ground that there is a basis for a real expansion in British agricultural production?

Mr. Walker: The farming community generally has welcomed the fact that

the considerable disadvantage that it worked under in recent years has been removed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the problems of the pig producing industry? There has been an improvement in regard to competition, but what he tried to achieve in his last negotiations did not help the pig producing industry to the full extent. What will he do to ensure that there is parity of competition?

Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this problem. I am pleased that, at least in principle, there is some agreement about the future of Lawson's. I hope that it succeeds. That agreement has been helped by the fact that we achieved a devaluation on pigmeat. The difference now in terms of MCAs is very small. I believe that the best way to try to help the industry is to do everything that we can to improve its marketing and processing side.

Sir Timothy Kitson: When my right hon. Friend meets the president of the NFU, will he discuss with him the problems and plight of the hill and upland farmers after the last severe winter, when they had severe stock losses and high costs? Will he undertake that when the June returns come in he will look at the position of those farmers yet again and discuss it with them?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I think that the position is serious. We announced last week that the additional subsidy for hill sheep proposed by my predecessor is immediately coming into operation. Beyond that, we guarantee that in October, when we know the results of the autumn sales and have had the result of the census, we shall sit down with the farming unions and agree what is required on the basis of the known facts, in order to restore herds to their former levels and see that prosperity continues in the hills.

Mr. Spearing: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets Mr. Butler, will he discuss with him the Conservative Party s commitment in its manifesto to make British farmers competitive with those in the rest of the EEC? Will he confirm to the House that since the last devaluation took British farm prices from their existing levels half the way to those in the


EEC he is committed to bringing them to parity in the next devaluation or soon after, and that that would substantially increase prices in this country?

Mr. Walker: I find it remarkable that members of a party that, when it devalued by 5 per cent., made great play of the fact that that increased the retail price index by only one-fifth of 1 per cent., make such complaint about something that brings many jobs and a great deal of prosperity to British agriculture.

Commissioner Gundelach

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will meet next Commissioner Gundelach of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peter Walker: On 23–24 July, when I attend the Agricultural Council.

Mr. Morrison: Will my right hon. Friend take that opportunity to discuss with the Commissioner the whole question of the sheepmeat regime, and in particular the entry into Europe of British-produced lamb and mutton?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. There will probably be on the agenda of the July meeting a discussion about the sheepmeat regime. The principle that I made clear to the Commissioner, and shall make clear to the Council if necessary, is that we shall not put up with any regime that continues the current discrimination against the exports of British sheep.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister ask Mr. Gundelach what has become of the survey that he, Mr. Gundelach, set in motion on the culling of grey seals? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to report to the House on the matter before December, when the problem arises again?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that unless he can persuade the Commissioner to reform the common agricultural policy within the next two years, it may disintegrate within five?

Mr. Walker: I think that at present the common agricultural policy is under considerable strain. This year there will be throughout Europe a rapid increase in costs, and there will still be vast sur-

pluses, which means that the matter must be tackled in a way that causes a great deal of difficulty for many member States. Therefore, it is a testing year for the CAP.

Mr. Dykes: Now that Herr Ertl in Germany and other German politicians seem to be more reasonable on the question of agricultural surpluses, will my right hon. Friend encourage the Commission in its attempts to do something about chronic surpluses, instead of simply waiting for next year's price review, which would be the obvious temptation after the latest package?

Mr. Walker: The Commission has guaranteed that it will be putting forward its proposals for the sugar regime in the early autumn months. That will give us time to tackle that matter. I welcome the tone of the pronouncements from West Germany, and I shall endeavour to follow up these matters in talks that I hope to have with Herr Ertl in the near future.

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while it is true that the butter subsidy and the school milk subsidy will offset the effect of this year's settlement on the British contribution for the current year, and while he was right to resist the discriminatory milk levy, the failure to replace that levy with alternative measures and the failure to cut the sugar beet quota can lead only to a further increase in the production of two commodities which are already in massive structural surplus? Does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister may achieve in relation to the British contribution in the autumn, there is no substitute for policies that will cut those surpluses in the long term?

Mr. Walker: I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of the cut in the sugar quota. I supported such a cut in this year's price negotiations, but the Commission decided not to press it. Having negotiated there, the hon. Gentleman will know that if the Commission does not put the proposal there is no way in which it can be accepted. We are due to tackle that matter in the early autumn.
We could have been tougher on the question of milk, with a price freeze. All I can say is that those surpluses were building up during the time when the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the


Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) had responsibility, and in every price fixing they agreed substantial increases in the price of milk.

Meat and Livestock Commission

Mr. Myles: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I met the chairman on 14 June and 26 June.

Mr. Myles: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the MLC, will he urge that due attention be paid to the valuable work done by the meat promotion executive? I must declare an interest, in that I was a member of that executive right up until the election.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly endorse the work of the MLC, through the meat promotion executive. Any work of that nature which can bring to the notice of a wider public the high quality and good value of British-produced meat is well worth while, and I support it.

Mr. John Home Robertson: When the Minister next meets the chairman, will he reflect on the numerous statements by Conservative spokesmen before the election that they would do more for the hard-pressed hill livestock producers? Will he explain to the MLC, the House and the farmers why his Government have done nothing to help the hill livestock producers in the Government's recent decision on compensatory allowances for hill livestock?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We did exactly what the hon. Gentleman's Government proposed to do. If he was dissatisfied with that, why did he not say so earlier?

Mr. Michael Brown: When he next meets the chairman of the MLC, will my hon. Friend discuss with him the shortage of abattoirs as a result of closures, such as the closure of the Scunthorpe abattoir, which is resulting in the import of large amounts of processed meat?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I had a meeting with the Association of British Abattoir Owners only this morning, so I am very much aware of the industry's problems and concerns. I am considering these very carefully.

Mr. Stoddart: When the Minister next meets the MLC, will he draw its attention to the BBC programme " World About Us ", which showed animals, particularly poultry and pigs, being kept in disgusting, atrocious and inhumane conditions? Will he discuss ways and means of ending that form of factory farming and perhaps having food labelled to show whether it is produced in factory farms or on free-range farms?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's question is not the direct responsibility of the Meat and Livestock Commission. I think that there is a later question on the Order Paper about animal welfare generally. So far as there may be an interest in that direction, I shall certainly discuss it at my next meeting with the chairman.

Agricultural Land (Capital Transfer Tax)

Mr. Marland: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had in connection with alleviating the burden of capital transfer tax on agricultural land.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement that he would be instituting a review of the capital taxation system with a view to making it simpler and less oppressive. Clearly, one of the issues to be considered in this review is the impact of capital transfer tax on agricultural land.

Mr. Marland: As a farmer, I naturally welcome the message from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, land ownership is still vulnerable to a future Government who may seek to launch a dogmatic attack on land ownership; a Government who are not sympathetic to the needs of agriculture. Inflation has had—[HON. MEMBERS: " Question."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House. He should ask a question. Moreover, the Minister is not responsible for future Governments.

Mr. Marland: My question to my hon. Friend is this, Mr. Speaker: will he seek


to change the nature of capital taxation in order to prevent the break-up in the future of family farming units which have done so much for this country in the past?

Mr. Wiggin: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take heed of what my hon. Friend has said. My hon. Friend should appreciate that both the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association are putting such points to us, and through us to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that one problem of French farming is the small farm unit? If action is not taken on capital transfer tax, we shall have the same problem in this country. Will he do something to keep the family farm, which is so important?

Mr. Wiggin: I appreciate the problems of fragmentation. My right hon. Friend is looking into this matter of taxation and farm structure. He will bear my hon. Friend's points in mind.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the recent conclusions on milk prices will have on structural surpluses in the EEC; and what effect he expects this to have on the British dairy industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: The freeze on EEC support prices for milk, which I negotiated as part of this year's CAP price package, is an important step towards discouraging the increasingly costly overproduction of milk in the Community. The rejection of an increased co-responsibility levy, and the 5 per cent. green pound devaluation, should permit efficient producers in the United Kingdom to maintain their competitive position.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in spite of what he keeps saying in the press and in this House the dairy farmers of this country are greatly disturbed that nothing is being done to reduce the surplus of milk in the EEC? Is he not aware that this will cause great harm to milk producers in this country, especially to small farmers? Will he take further action on the matter?

Mr. Walker: This has been the position for several years. For the first time,

we have achieved a freeze on the price of milk.

Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware of the tremendous swindle occurring within the EEC, and outside, in dairy products that are sold at giveaway prices to countries outside the EEC and then come back into the EEC at top EEC prices? Will he take steps, through the EEC, to stop this sort of swindle and to stop the waste of British taxpayers' money that is being used to pay for this swindle?

Mr. Walker: If details of any such arrangements come to the attention of the hon. Gentleman and he sends them to me, we shall immediately send them to the Commission.

Fishing industry

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends next to meet representatives of the fishing industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: I keep in close touch with representatives of all sectors of the British fishing industry.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that fishermen in my constituency feel that they are facing constant battles over net sizes, over-fishing and the exploration activities of oil companies and pollution? Is he aware that the Wessex water authority wishes to site a sewage outfall in Christchurch Bay? Will he give fishermen in my constituency, and fishermen around the country, the assurance that they will be consulted not only by his Department but by others before decisions are taken which adversely affect their lives?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I know that mesh sizes have caused problems in the industry. We met representatives of every type of fisherman in the country, including representatives of fishermen in my hon. Friend's constituency. They considered that our policy was right. I am aware of the specific problems that my hon. Friend has experienced over oil pollution. Again, the Department acted speedily on that matter, to the benefit of his fishermen.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will give the same special attention


this year to the needs of the Mourne fisheries as his predecessor did last year?

Mr. Walker: I certainly give an assurance that we shall look into the problems connected with the fishermen. I recognise the importance of this fishery to the fishermen concerned. We shall look into this matter and discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman before making any decisions.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that fishermen are looking to the Government to maintain the same robust attitude as that shown by the Minister of Agriculture in the previous Administration? Failing agreement on fishing, the answer is for the Government to take unilateral action.

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is why we took unilateral action on conservation on 1 July. There is no disagreement between the parties. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who was the Minister in the previous Administration, said that it was a great help to him in his negotiations to have the whole of Parliament united on this issue. I believe that the whole of Parliament remains united on this issue.

Mr. Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the fishermen in my constituency are experiencing difficulty in obtaining fuel supplies? Will he have discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy to make sure that their needs, which are important in relation to fish supplies, are met?

Mr. Walker: If the fishermen in my hon. Friend's constituency have a specific problem they should contact my regional office, which will do its best to solve the problem.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only matter dominating the minds of the deepsea fishing fleet in Hull is where it can fish? The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are barred from fishing in the North Atlantic. Can he put before Mr. Gundelach, or the House, any suggestion of where we can find outlets for fishing?

Mr. Walker: I recognise the real problem that has existed for the long-distance fishing fleet for some time. One of the reasons why we are anxious to reach a sensible and acceptable agreement is that

this could open third areas, with the Common Market, to the benefit of our fishermen. It is important to get a basic agreement that makes sense for our fishing industry.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend pay attention to the problems being caused to the prawn fishermen in the Moray Firth due to the 50 per cent. by-catch regulation?

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly look into the question.

Mr. Mason: Is it not likely that there will be a Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting during the recess and that this is probably the last opportunity for the Minister to give the House the assurance that it wants? Will he assure the House that he will fight for conservation and proper adequate resources for protection, and that he will try to obtain the fair share that we want in the Common Market pool, the 12-mile exclusive zone, so that we can get dominant preference in the 12- to 50-mile belt?

Mr. Walker: I can give the assurance that the principles that I have related to the House stand firmly as the principles that we want to achieve in a fishing agreement. We shall do all that we can to achieve them. It will be difficult to reach such an agreement, but we are totally united on both sides of the House. It is essential to the fishermen that we reach agreement.

Whales

Mr. Dubs: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had in the International Whaling Commission with the Governments of countries involved in commercial whaling.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When I opened the International Whaling Commission meeting on Monday I announced the Government's decision to support a moratorium on commercial whaling and to obtain a ban on the import of sperm whale oil. The meeting of the Commission is still continuing but I am glad to report to the House that so far it has been agreed that commercial whaling, except for minke whales, by factory ships should cease.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that some of his remarks will be most welcome but that a great deal of concern still exists about the senseless slaughter of whales? Will he explain why he is not willing to press for an immediate ban on the import of sperm whale oil into this country? Will he give an assurance that he is not giving way to pressure from other Ministers on this issue?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, we do not believe that the ban so far agreed goes far enough. We believe that minke whales should have been included in the moratorium. We shall continue pressing for that step to be adopted. On the question of the import of sperm whale oil, we believe that action must be effective on a wide basis. If we can get the agreement of our European partners for a ban on imports throughout the Community, that will obviously be more effective than a ban imposed only by ourselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has already initiated proceedings in this direction in Brussels this week.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that if the discussions in Europe fail we shall not hesitate to take unilateral action. We are under no pressure from anyone. We have made up our own minds. We shall pursue our own course, in the best interests of proper conservation.

Sir John Langford-Holt: Is it not true that the United States has already banned imports of sperm whale oil and has found adequate alternatives?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To be fair, substitutes have not yet been developed for all needs. Far more effective than banning imports, which we are proposing to do in any case, is to stop the hunting of sperm whales. It is that moratorium that has been agreed at the International Whaling Commission this week. That far transcends anything else. None the less, I give my hon. Friend and the House the assurance that we shall continue to pursue this question of the ban on imports of sperm whale oil.

Mr. Leighton: Is it not true that pirate whalers are one of the biggest problems? What are the Minister's plans to deal with them?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. About 10 per cent. of the whales caught are caught by ships of nations that are not members of the International Whaling Commission. This gives us great cause for concern. Whaling nations such as Japan are banning imports of whale derivatives from these. I have asked my advisers to examine the legalities to see what we can do to help.

Sugar

Mr. John Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much sugar is stockpiled in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As an insurance against shortage sugar producers are required, under EEC regulations, to maintain minimum stocks equal to 10 per cent. of production. At the end of May this stockholding requirement was about 220,000 tonnes. This is in addition to the Government emergency stocks.

Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the United Kingdom stockpile is only a part of the enormous EEC stockpile of over 3 million tonnes? Does he agree that if market forces were applied to the sugar sector the EEC mountains would be reduced and the price of sugar for the housewife would come down?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is no sugar in intervention in the United Kingdom. We believe that more drastic action has to be taken to control sugar surpluses in Europe generally and that that is best done through the quota system. We shall be working towards that end in the autumn.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the sugar beet industry to the whole of East Anglia not only from the farming point of view but in terms of employment in factories, in the haulage industry and on the farms?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says. Sugar beet is an important agricultural commodity in the United Kingdom. It is especially important in specific areas such as the one that my hon. Friend represents. In our discussions in Europe we shall bear in mind the interests of our producers.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a positive increase in the cultivation of sugar beet in the Community and that that will undoubtedly damage the long-term interests of cane sugar producers with whom we have associate agreements?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Lady probably knows that the agreement to import from ACP countries has been taken over by the Commission and that it is maintaining those imports.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action is proposed to reduce the cost of the EEC common agricultural policy to the consumer in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Walker: I will continue to work for measures such as those agreed in the recent price negotiations which represent the best ever outcome for United Kingdom consumers.

Mr. Evans: As 70 nor cent. of the expenditure of the EEC is on the common agricultural policy at the expense of British consumers and taxpayers, what effort will be made to reduce that amount, especially when the Government are considering cutting back on school milk and school meals but increasing public expenditure to subsidise Bavarian and French farmers?

Mr. Walker: I agree that it is urgently necessary to try to tackle the vast CAP budget. During the period of office of the previous Government it increased from £1·6 billion to £6·6 billion. That is what we inherited. The price freeze on milk is the first major step to try to reverse that trend.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend indicate what proposals the president of the National Farmers Union has brought to his attention and that of the Government to bring about more efficient agriculture in the EEC, which will be of benefit to not only the consumer but the farmer and will guarantee a secure supply of food in the long term, which I am sure is my right hon. Friend's objective?

Mr. Walker: There is a large range of measures, and we are constantly in

touch with the agriculture industry, including the National Farmers Union. We intend to try to be constructive. Our farmers are relieved that at last they have the scope to be more productive and that they are not at an unfair disadvantage compared with their competitors.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the radical proposals that he and the Government intend to endeavour to obtain from the Common Market countries. What will he do if he is not successful?

Mr. Walker: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not enter into negotiations with the idea of not being successful.

Poultry Meat

Mr. Torney: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the current British Poultry Federation scheme for the implementation of the poultry meat hygiene regulations; and if it favours the continuance of this scheme.

Mr. Wiggin: I welcome the scheme which the British Poultry Federation and local authorities have operated for setting up the poultry meat inspection service. This is essentially a matter between the British Poultry Federation and the local authorities but I should be happy to see its continuation.

Mr. Torney: May I take it that the Minister means that the Government will continue to pay half of the cost of implementing the scheme? If the Government do not intend to do that, is he aware that that will make the British poultry industry uncompetitive with the rest of Europe? Will he bear in mind that other European countries pay at least half if not the whole cost of the scheme?

Mr. Wiggin: I understand that the relative inspection schemes in the various countries are difficult to compare. The industry's application for continuing assistance is currently under consideration.

TUC

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister when she expects next to meet the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): No dates have yet been arranged.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, in the light of the deflationary oil price rise, her emphasis again yesterday on strict monetary targets as a top priority is an exact replica internationally of 1930s beggar-my-neighbour deflation? Does she not understand that that is the exact opposite of what is needed, which is to expand the economy plus a planned growth of imports, which with the present under-usage of men and machinery would not be inflationary?

The Prime Minister: Unless we tackle the money supply problem there is no hope of beating inflation in future years. On that at least the former Chancellor of the Exchequer was with me rather than with the hon. Gentleman.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no shortage of demand in this country. The trouble is that it is being met by imports an not sufficiently by home-produced goods.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Trades Union Congress and its leaders, will she advise them that she does not believe it democratic for bodies representing workers to indulge in party political strikes, and that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that in any strike action the Government will assume, and will introduce legislation to assume, that the trade union movement will pay the families of strikers a certain sum per week so that the long-suffering taxpayer does not have to subsidise official political action?

The Prime Minister: We have no immediate plans for legislation on that matter. Our immediate plans are for legislation on the matters contained in the consultative document. I think that most people will agree with my hon. Friend that the function of trade unions is to look after the interests of their members and not to engage in politics.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Now that Britain practises the toughest immigration controls anywhere in the world, when the right hon. Lady meets trade union leaders next week, will she reassure them that their complaints about the deportation of trade unionists from this country,

many of whom have worked consistently here for many years and who are now being deported, will be heeded and that she will give to those trade unionists the same compassion that she is asking to be given to refugees who are entering the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that Britain operates the toughest immigration controls anywhere in the world. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to cases of which I know nothing, perhaps he will let me have details.

Mr. Bulmer: If when my right hon. Friend next meets the leaders of the TUC they make it plain that they will offer outright opposition to the Government's industrial relations proposals, will she draw their attention to the recent ORC poll which indicated that a majority of trade union leaders and Labour Party supporters would support the Government against the trade unions if they frustrated reform? Does she believe that the majority of trade union members support her proposals because they represent an extension of individual worker rights?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the TUC leaders will offer outright opposition to the proposals that we put to them. Those proposals received a wide welcome. They will help to improve the individual's rights, sometimes against the trade union itself. We carried out the widest possible consultation on these matters in the recent election.

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Prime Minister when next she plans to meet the TUC.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Stoddart: How can the right hon. Lady ask ordinary trade unionists for wage restraint, as she did last weekend, when the Minister of State, Treasury admitted that 30 per cent. of income tax reliefs in the Budget would go to the richest 5 per cent. of the population?

The Prime Minister: That leaves 70 per cent. to go to the rest. [Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is being unreasonable. Hon. Members must listen to the answers.

The Prime Minister: Taxation reliefs cannot go to those who do not pay tax. Greater reliefs are bound to go to those who pay the most tax.

Mr. Tapsell: When my right hon. Friend next meets the leaders of the TUC, will she point out to them that while a wages-prices spiral is different from an inflationary problem and requires a different response, neither will be solved without a substantial increase in productivity?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The best way to get increases in real wages is to get real increases in output.

Mr. David Steel: When the Prime Minister discusses with the TUC the question of her election mandate and election commitments, about which she feels strongly, will she make it clear whether the election commitments entered into by individual members of the Shadow Cabinet will be honoured regardless of whether those individuals now occupy places in the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: We shall try to honour each and every commitment in our election manifesto.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 12 July.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to duties in this House I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. Kurt Waldheim.

Mr. Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the report in The Guardian today that before the end of the summer the Government plan to introduce a standard of living index? Would not such an index give a much fairer and more accurate assessment of the effects of the Budget on average families? Would it not also demonstrate that the claim made by Moss Evans yesterday, that pay negotiations would need to take the retail price index as the starting point, was bogus and unwarranted?

The Prime Minister: Alongside the present retail price index we are planning to introduce a standard of living index, which will give a much more accurate reflection of the direct tax reductions that have been made. After all, the tax that one pays is the price for education, roads, defence, and so on. When that price goes down, the reduction should be included in the retail price index. Unfortunately, it is not.

Mr. McElhone: Will the Prime Minister find time today to discuss with Scottish Members of Parliament their concern about the dispersal of Civil Service jobs to Scotland? Will she accept that if she reneges on the long-standing promise of two previous Governments there will be a resurgence of nationalism in Scotland, and that the Scottish Tories will suffer most from that?

The Prime Minister: I have received a number of representations on this matter from my Scottish colleagues. The dispersal programme is under review. I have no statement to make about it.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister if she will appoint a Minister of Cabinet rank with specific responsibility for the overall co-ordination of science policy.

The Prime Minister: I do not consider that such an appointment is necessary. There is already full consultation between the Ministers and Departments concerned.

Mr. Lloyd: Although all Members of Parliament assume that my right hon. Friend's sympathies are with the importance of science, is she aware that within the OECD area there are 10 countries which appoint a Minister of Cabinet rank with specific responsibility for science and technology? Is she further aware that if we are to meet our energy aims and ambitions, that will depend entirely upon the scientific and technological community? Can she give it some encouragement that the Government agree with that view?

The Prime Minister: The person who has most responsibility for the future of science and technology is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. There is a


junior Minister who is responsible for science education. I do not think that it would be an advance to appoint a specific Minister for science and technology. Attention to scientific and technological matters should run through each and every Department, and should not be allocated to one specific Department.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Reverting to the question of science, will the Prime Minister say where and when she received a mandate for the figures revealed today which show that a housewife who paid £25 last month for her groceries now pays £28·25?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That comes under the open type of question. That is stretching imagination beyond even what a Welshman can take.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the report of the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth, which points out that the richest 5 per cent. of the population own almost three-quarters of the land in this country? Will the Prime Minister also consider the recommendation of the Northfield committee to extend the public ownership of land and introduce a comprehensive register of land ownership, which would reveal that the Conservative Party chairman owns 44,000 acres of land in Scotland, but that he is a mere pauper compared with the Duke of Buccleuch, who owns more than 250,000 acres of land?

The Prime Minister: The report of the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth refers to the distribution of wealth in the life-

time of the Labour Government. I trust that wealth will be much more widely distributed when the Conservative policy of selling council houses has taken effect. It will make many people property owners for the first time in their lives.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Prime Minister say how it is possible to sell council houses when people cannot obtain mortgages?

The Prime Minister: Is it not beyond the financial wit of man to transfer the payments which the local authorities make to the tenants to make as mortgage repayments, instead of as rent.

Mr. du Cann: Will my right hon. Friend consider today what action might be taken under the law in respect of a recent television programme that gave great offence to Members of Parliament on both sides of the House and people outside, namely, the interview with the alleged assassin of our late colleague Mr. Airey Neave?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is considering the matter raised by my right hon. Friend. Having seen the transcript of the programme, I am appalled that it was ever transmitted. I believe that it reflects gravely upon the judgment of the BBC and those responsible for the decision.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall that several weeks ago I wrote to her about an order for 77 Chieftain tanks at Vickers works at Ellesmere? Is she aware that, following the closure of the Scotswood works in my constituency, with the loss of 750 jobs, there is grave anxiety in the area? Will she take a few minutes off from her busy programme today to have words with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence so that a decision may be made on the contract?

The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Gentleman's concern. No decision has yet been reached on that matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are seeking further orders to replace those that we lost from Iran.

PRIME MINISTER'S QUESTIONS

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short statement about the arrangements for Prime Minister's questions.
Honourable Members on both sides of the House have expressed dissatisfaction with the number of open questions that have been tabled recently, although I have not attempted to change the practice in any way.
The present practice is that I accept those oral questions, whether open or substantive, which can reasonably and appropriately be directed to me, rather than to a departmental Minister.
Over the years, that criterion has proved impossible to define more precisely. Clearly, detailed constituency matters ought to be dealt with by the appropriate Minister. But I expect to answer substantive questions that raise issues of general significance and national interest, if hon. Members wish to ask them. I feel, however, that I must retain the right exercised by all my predecessors to transfer a question where it seems to me appropriate to do so.
So far in this Session, 624 oral questions have been put down to me and I have not transferred a single one.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that her statement that she will be willing to answer more definite questions, even about departmental matters, will be very welcome to the House? In case this precludes hon. Members from asking questions about matters of immediate moment that have arisen since questions could be tabled, however, will she also give consideration to widening the scope of private notice questions put down even on the day upon which they are to be answered?

The Prime Minister: With respect, I do not think that I am the arbiter of private notice questions.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Lady recall that two years ago, with the assistance and co-operation of her predecessor, what she has suggested today was put forward by the Select Committee on procedure but was not utilised at that time by hon. Members? Will she make

every endeavour, through the usual channels and otherwise, to encourage hon. Members to exploit the opportunities opened up by her statement today?

The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that there was a time when that opportunity was used, and we went through a period when particular questions were the order of the day. Being then on the Opposition Benches, a number of us complained bitterly that we had absolutely no opportunity to raise the sort of topical question that can be asked by means of an open question. The nature of the questions to be asked is, of course, a matter for hon. Members. I am here to try to answer them and will try to take any question that comes to me. Having been on both sides of the House, I suggest that it would please more hon. Members if we had a mixture of both kinds of question, so that on each day we had an open question, giving some opportunity to challenge me about the topical point that comes up suddenly.

Mr. James Callaghan: The Prime Minister will probably remember that she pressed me very closely to define what questions would be retained and what would be transferred. I said that I thought that it was impossible to give such a definition and that it must be left to the discretion of the Prime Minister. Has she now come round to that point of view?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he transferred more questions than I have.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that over the period that I have been able to check, there were 532 questions that I answered and that I transferred 14? It is not so much of a difference, is it?

The Prime Minister: But I have had 624 questions put down to me and I have transferred none.

Mr. Adley: Is not my right hon. Friend's point about the advantages of the open question perfectly made by the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) this afternoon, on a matter that is widely felt by many people in this House, which could not possibly have been raised if there had been only specific questions on the Order Paper?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. I am here to try to answer whatever questions are put down to me within the rulings that I have tried to give.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Lady think again about the desirability of having so many open-ended questions? This does not encourage Members to exercise a little ingenuity in tabling their questions—an exercise that I am sure the right hon. Lady would agree to be highly desirable. Will she not issue, somehow, a blocking question to stop the indefinite number of questions asking what are her engagements for the day? It is an intolerable position, which brings the House into disrepute. Will she not reconsider it?

The Prime Minister: I am not responsible for tabling the questions. If I start to issue questions there really will be trouble.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been rising in their places. Then I have a short statement of my own to make.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister not misleading the House? As the total amount of Prime Minister's Question Time since the election is only just over two hours and she claims that she has answered about 600 questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will speak for herself, but I think she said that the questions had been addressed to her.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that before we are prepared to accept this new policy we should like to see a little more of the small print? Is she aware that unless she gives a list of specific subjects that are acceptable to her, Members of Parliament on either side could go to the Table Office, table the question, and have it accepted by the staff in the Table Office as appropriate to the general statement that she has made today, whereupon, if she is not happy about the Member who has tabled the question, she has the privilege of deciding that the subject of the question is one that she will not tackle?
The right hon. Lady's statement, rather than giving a great deal more freedom

to Members of Parliament, provides a wonderful opportunity for the Prime Minister to block questions from those people whose questions she is not prepared to answer. We shall need to have a list of specific subjects before the situations is satisfactory.

The Prime Minister: But it is not a new policy. I made that perfectly clear. I have not attempted to change the existing practice in any way. The use to which hon. Members wish to put that practice is a matter for hon. Members and not for me.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is totally unfair? Is she further aware that the open question was introduced into this House by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) did everything possible to block it and kill it, and that it was her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who allowed it, and that she is continuing it?

The Prime Minister: I think that the open question has its uses, but if it means that one has to answer any questions from any quarter on any subject, it seems to me that one might expect wider questions on substantive subjects.

Mr. Maclennan: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Lady for her willingness, at least in theory, to answer more questions from us, but will she say what considerations she will have in mind in the future when transferring general questions to other Ministers who have departmental responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I gave the only example that I thought could fittingly be given—that I do not think it right that the Prime Minister should answer detailed constituency matters. Those obviously fall within the sphere of a departmental Minister and it would be best, therefore, if they were addressed to that Minister.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the large number of questions put down to the Prime Minister, would she consider giving more time to answering questions than the present 15 minutes on Tuesday and Thursday, especially in view of the difficulty that some hon. Members have of being called in the first place?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have followed the tradition that has built up over a long time and I have devoted the same amount of time to answering questions as did my predecessors. If more time were to be devoted to my answering questions it would only take time from departmental Ministers, and that would not be desirable.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would the Prime Minister undertake to place a list of her engagements for a particular day in the No Lobby? That would mean that hon. Members would not have to ask her question on that subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said, that would enable hon. Members to use their ingenuity, as opposed to the farce that we have had over the past few months.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That might deny the opportunity to hon. Members who wish to ask such a question.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I also have my own difficulty with regard to Prime Minister's Questions.

PRIME MINISTER'S QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I am beginning to receive letters from hon. Members complaining that they have not been called for supplementary questions to Prime Minister's Questions.

As the House knows, the competition to catch my eye on these occasions is very severe and it is never possible, in the time available, to call more than a small proportion of those who rise. I should add, for the benefit of the House, that I keep a most careful record of those hon. Members whom I have called at Prime Minister's Question Time during the current Session of Parliament. I try hard to be fair and to give an opportunity to as many hon. Members as possible. Back Benchers who have been called three or four times in the Session can hardly expect to stand much of a chance until their less successful colleagues have been called.
I hope that the House will recognise that I try to operate these arrangements as far as possible, and that I shall have no more letters from any hon. Member who has not been called. I sat as a Back Bencher in this House for 20 years and the thought never occurred to me to write to the Speaker because I had not been called on a supplementary question belonging to someone else. I may have muttered under my breath and had my own idea about those who were called, but I soon got over it when I went to the Tea Room, and I recommend the same to the House.

Mr. Skinner: Why do you not name the people who are grovelling to you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Statement. Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 JULY—Remaining stages of the European Assembly (Salaries and Pensions) Bill.
Debate on the 1980 preliminary draft Community budget, when EEC documents 7633/79, 5528/79 and 6405/79 will be relevant.
TUESDAY 17 JULY—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]. Debate on an Opposition motion on reducing public services for those who need them most.
The House will be asked to agree all outstanding Estimates and Supplementary Estimates.
Motions on Northern Ireland orders on Pneumoconiosis, etc, (Workers' Compensation) on Inheritance (Provisions for Family Dependants); on Capital Transfer Tax (Consequential Amendment) and on Tattooing of Minors.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
WEDNESDAY 18 JULY—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motion relating to the Housing (Limitation and Rent Income Increases) (Scotland) Revocation Order.
THURSDAY 19 JULY—Debate on the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on capital punishment.
Motions on the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations and on the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations.
FRIDAY 20 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 23 JULY—Motions on the following Northern Ireland Orders: Appropriation (No. 2); Emergency Provisions (Amendment); Firearms (Amendment).
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Order.
[The following Select Committee reports will also be relevant to the debate on the 1980 Community budget on Monday 16 July:
20th Report, 1978–79 (HC 10-xx, 1978–79); Doc. 5528/79 (Already published).
1st Report, 1979–80 (HC 159–i, 1979–80); Docs. 7633/79 and 6405/79 (Available in typescript).]

Mr. James Callaghan: I should like to raise two questions on the business for Monday and Tuesday. Perhaps I can put them separately. We have asked—I repeat the request—that Monday's business should be reversed. The salaries of the European Members of the Assembly are far less important than the 1980 preliminary draft Community budget. I have here the documents for it. The amount of £10 billion, of which our contribution is about £2 billion, is to be discussed by the Finance Council next Friday, I understand. If the Government are to be taken seriously by other Governments on the matter of reduction of our contribution—as I trust they will be—we should discuss this as a House and begin the business of the day with this subject, so that it is not debated at 10 o'clock at night, when no one will believe that we are very serious about it. I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider this business and put on the salaries and pensions Bill after we have had a full debate on the draft Community budget.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider what the Leader of the Opposition said. As he will know, it is essential to have a debate on this matter before the Council of Ministers debates the budget on 23 July.

Mr. Callaghan: That is why I ask that we should have a debate that will be taken seriously in this House and overseas. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for saying that he will consider this matter. I press him hard to do so.
My second question is about Tuesday's business, on reducing services for those in need. This is the second Supply day that we shall have had since the House met, and both of them have been reduced to half a day because of the intervention of private business. That is not the responsibility of the Government, but it does cut into Opposition time. Therefore, I


should like to put in a request now for a further full Supply day before the House rises, whenever that may be, in order that we can have a day that is not eroded by private business, to enable us to discuss the general deterioration in the prospects for employment, inflation and growth of the last few disastrous weeks.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman said, but as I look at the state of the timetable I think that it will be difficult to comply with his request.

Mr. Callaghan: I promise that I shall not rise again, Mr. Speaker, but this really is an occasion when the Opposition have certain rights. If we have had two half days only, because they have been eroded by private business, the Leader of the House—I know that he tries to lead the whole House—has a responsibility for giving us the opportunity, on a Supply day, to discuss these general matters.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend any further information about the stoppage of the daily Hansard, which has now become an intolerable inconvenience?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department is in close touch with developments. I deeply regret the inconvenience caused to right hon. and hon. Members. However, the correct course, if there is a dispute of this nature—particularly when the Government are involved—is to use the established arbitration procedures.

Dr. McDonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he will find time for us to debate the orders concerned with terms and conditions of employment which alter the unfair dismissal conditions and rights of consultation for trade unionists, in the case of redundancies, to the detriment of workers?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give the hon. Lady a date for that, but I shall consider what she said.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The House has proceeded now for nearly three months with-

out the benefit of either the old or new Select Committee systems. Is this a desirable state of affairs? Can the Leader of the House tell us how soon the new structure will be established? We really do not want to waste any more time.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend. I am glad to say that we are making good progress on these matters but there are complicated issues, which have to be resolved. However, I hope that the Committees will be set up before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Beith: Will the Leader of the House consider making it his practice in future to inform the House, in the course of his Business Statement, what private business the Chairman of Ways and Means has nominated for the following week? Also, is it possible for the Leader of the House to give some indication of the provisional dates for the beginning and ending of the Summer Recess? The right hon. Gentleman could make them conditional on the dispatch of Government business, which might concentrate the minds of hon. Members.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I could, of course, add particulars of private business to the Business Statement but, as I look at it, it would add to the length of the statement. The first of the opposed private business measures to be considered will be the Road Transport Bill.
I think that it would be a dangerous practice to announce provisionally the dates of the recess. It might either raise expectations unduly or depress them unduly. I appreciate the needs for hon. Members—particularly those with family responsibilities—to know these dates at the earliest possible moment. It is my hope that we shall be able to rise before the end of the month.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: When does my right hon. Friend expect to be in a position to make a further statement on the continuing discussions about improving the opportunities for raising questions on foreign affairs?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: This, again, is another complicated issue, but I am making progress on it. I hope that I shall have something to say by this time next week.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House prepared to urge upon his colleagues who are responsible the need for a statement as soon as possible on what is taking place at the children's bone marrow transplant unit at Westminster? Is he aware that the BBC reported this morning that young children suffering from leukaemia would die as a result of the closure of this unit? Does that situation not bear a small comparison with the clamourings that went on when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were in opposition, when a few hospital workers were out on strike for a few days? Why do not the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of his colleagues in the Cabinet, led by this heartless woman, stop this human butchery? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are accustomed to hard hitting in this House, but it is a matter of taste as to what is said. I can say no more, except that it is a matter of taste—[HON. MEMBERS: " Ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw."]—Order. The hon Gentleman is responsible for what he said. It was very personal and, I believe, unworthy of this House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that the cause, which must be a matter of concern to all hon. Members, is advanced by being placed in that context. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), is my right hon. Friend aware that the non-appearance of Hansard is restricting Members of Parliament in their democratic right to communicate with their constituents, and also to express various views on causes that are of concern to their constituents? I appreciate the problems that are faced by the Minister responsible for the Civil Service, but will my right hon. Friend take on board the urgency of resuming the publication of Hansard so that both the public and Members of Parliament are not so inconvenienced as they are at the present time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am fully aware of the inconvenience that is caused to every hon. Member, including myself, by not having the printed Official Report. If

it would help, I would try to print it myself, but that might cause more trouble.

Mr. Ennals: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to early-day motion No. 65, which is signed by a large number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and which urges the Government to admit more Vietnamese refugees?
[That this House, deeply concerned by the plight of hundreds of thousands of refugees from Indo-China, condemns the circumstances which led to these people fleeing from their homes, and recognising that the problem can only be solved by international action, supports Her Majesty's Government in calling for an early international conference to make plans for relief and resettlement; and furthermore being aware that many refugees have not only been refused asylum by neighbouring countries but are being towed out to sea to face an uncertain fate on the South China Sea recognises Great Britain's special responsibility for the situation in Hong Kong and urges Her Majesty's Government to plan to admit an increased number of refugees as part of an international effort.]
Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern about the problem? Can we expect a statement on Government policy in advance of the conference which starts next Friday?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date, but I can assure him that the Government are considering this matter and are fully aware of the need to play their part in what is not a political but a humanitarian problem.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the point made by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) has wide support in many parts of the House? Many of us hope for a full statement on this deplorable matter of the Vietnamese boat people as soon as possible.
As for the publication of Hansard, does my right hon. Friend not think that the time has come for the Minister of State, Civil Service Department to break his Trappist silence on this matter and to make a statement to the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On the question of the dispute involving the Parliamentary


Press, I do not think that it necessarily helps matters to have continual statements from Ministers on the details of industrial disputes. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] Well, hon. Members must not be annoyed if I agree with them.
As to the Vietnamese refugees, I stress again that this is a matter that has touched the conscience of the entire nation, and the Government are determined to do what they can to assist.

Mr. Shore: May I press the Leader of the House further in regard to his reply to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals)? It is not good enough if we are not to have a statement before the conference begins. I believe that the atmosphere at the whole of the conference, which, after all, has been called as a result of the initiative of the Prime Minister, will be prejudiced if this country does not make its real concern very clear and backs up that verbal concern with firm offers of what we are prepared to do.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am, of course, most willing to respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have tried to assist the House by giving an indication of the Government's concern, and I am happy to add to that by saying that we shall have a statement before the conference.

Mr. Marlow: Since many hon. Members are not yet aware whether the Government believe that the six principles have been met in Rhodesia, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a speedy debate, so that we can discuss this matter and achieve some clarity on the situation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There will be a debate on Southern Africa before the House rises.

Mr. Harry Ewing: In view of the importance of the dispersal of Civil Service jobs, particularly to Glasgow, will the Leader of the House make sure that before the House rises for the Summer Recess either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of State, Civil Service Department makes a statement about the Government's decision? Can he give an assurance that a decision on this important matter will be announced before the House has risen?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is an important matter. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that important matters of policy should be announced in this House.

Mr. William Clark: Does my right Friend realise that during Question Time today, in response to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the Prime Minister said that the Attorney-General was urgently looking into the question whether the law should be invoked or changed in view of the interview relating to our late colleague, Airey Neave? Can we have a statement next week, or certainly before we rise for the Summer Recess?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I heard what the Prime Minister said, because I was sitting here at the time. I shall certainly keep in close touch with my colleague the Attorney-General to see whether a statement is necessary.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern about the failure to reintroduce the Countryside Bill, which had a large measure of agreement when it completed its Committee stage at the end of the last Parliament? In view of the concern to stop people ploughing up national parks, particularly Exmoor—which will probably happen in the autumn—will he kindly tell us when the Government intend to reintroduce this measure?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not possible to do so before the Summer Recess, but I am aware of the progress that was made on that Bill, which has become comparatively uncontroversial. I shall try to see that it is not forgotten.

Mr. John Townend: Despite the sympathies of many hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that a large proportion of the population is very perturbed at the thought of a substantial number of immigrants being allowed in from Vietnam?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In such matters, one has to balance the conflicting interests that are involved, but this country has a long and honourable tradition of helping those who are in need. These are people who are caught in a desperate situation, and I hope that we can play our part in an international action to help them.

Mr. Jay: If the House is really to strengthen its control over public expenditure, is it not intolerable that we should discuss an EEC budget of £10 billion for a few hours at a late hour of the night?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that this is an important matter. In response to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I have said that I will look at it again. It is better to have a debate of some kind rather than no debate at all, but I shall do my best, within the parameters in which I am confined, to see whether the objections can be met.

Mr. Faulds: When may we have a debate on the whole range of arts and heritage matters, in view of the shoddy performance of the spate of Conservative election promises on these issues?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that it will be possible to have a debate on the arts before we rise for the Summer Recess. As for the Government's expenditure cuts, the arts have borne a reasonable but not excessive share. I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Opposition spokesman for the arts. I trust that it will last longer than his previous appointment in that position and that the quality of his contributions also will improve.

Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a very short debate on the standards of the dress being adopted in the Chamber? Does he agree that certain hon. Members dress in a fashion that would be more appropriate to the beaches to be found in Stirlingshire and Derbyshire?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take a wide interpretation of my duties, but I think that that is really a matter for Mr. Speaker rather than for me. I feel that in these matters example is more effective than precept.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is usually forthcoming in his statements to the House. Therefore, notwithstanding the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), will he tell us a little more about the opposed private business on Tuesday?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should be happy to communicate further details to the hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members who have been rising to ask questions.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Leader of the House aware that more than 100 right hon. and hon. Members have today signed an early-day motion congratulating the workers in Govan shipyard who have given up their holiday in order to make sure that the Polish order is completed on time even though they have no more orders on their book, and asking the Government to match the commitment of those workers to the industry by taking urgent action to provide further work both for Govan and for other shipyards? Will the Leader of the House ensure an early debate on the matter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall pass that information on to my right hon. Friend. I certainly join in the congratulations expressed by other hon. Members.

Mr. Leadbitter: Last week, when I raised the matter with him, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he was well appraised of the urgent need to debate the steel industry. Is he aware that since that time the subject has become much more critical? Townships and their future are at stake, a great deal of unemployment faces the industry and, more latterly, another factor has arisen, in that steel is coming into this country from East Germany, through the port of Hartlepool, with a Common Market licence. These and other factors reinforce the need for the Leader of the House, if he accepts the urgency of the subject, as he said he did last week, to arrange for a debate on the matter before the recess. Will that be possible?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that it does not look very hopeful, but there will be an opportunity to debate at least an aspect of the steel industry when the Order in Council dealing with the United Kingdom supplementary contribution to the ECSC budget for 1979 is debated in Standing Committee on 18 July. I hope that that will be of some help.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I add a piece of information for which not he but his hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) asked, with regard to opposed private business. The London Transport Bill will be followed by the East Kilbride District Council Bill, Second Reading, and the University College London Bill [Lords], Second Reading.

Mr. Dewar: Reverting to the question of shipbuilding, I am sure that the Leader of the House will be aware of the great anxiety, especially on Clydeside where yards such as Govan are almost entirely out of work and where their admirable efficiency is, in a sense, bringing them into further trouble at a rather earlier date. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us early clarification on this matter? At the moment we are bombarded by rumours in the press and apparent leaks of Conservative policy, and this is breeding depression and despair on Clydeside—a situation which, in everyone's interests, should be ended at a very early date.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I apprecate the force of what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week on what is fast becoming a public scandal, namely, the fact that five weeks after the

closing date for declaration of Members' interests there are still 30 hon. Members who have not so far declared their interests, and the rest cannot be published because the Government have not yet established the machinery to set up the necessary Select Committee.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The matter cannot be disposed of until the Select Committee is set up and has had time to consider the returns of hon. Members to the invitations to them to declare their interests. I note with interest the figure that the hon. Member has given. I presume that it is up to date, but other hon. Members may have declared their interests by now.

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help. You have spoken today about the difficulties sometimes experienced in catching your eye. I wonder whether there are any precedents on manner of dress which guide you in enabling you to see an hon. Member when he tries to catch your eye. If an hon. Member is dressed in a way that you do not like, according to the precedents which guide you does that make it difficult for him to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker: All I say is that all of us must be mindful that we are in the Mother of Parliaments and behave accordingly.

SHOTTON STEELWORKS

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the imminent announcement by the British Steel Corporation today to begin to negotiate a speedy rundown of steel making at the BSC Shotton works.
I seek a debate because the number of jobs proposed for obliteration totals 6,000. Some 3,000 jobs will be lost indirectly. The announcement does not tally with the previous statement by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation that steel making would be retained until 1982–83.
It is customary for the House to be informed of major industrial developments—that was certainly so under the previous Labour Government—and I believe it to be unfair to allow an hon. Member to learn of such a grave development in his constituency from sources which are only journalistic.
Only today I received from the Secretary of State for Industry a letter dated 10 July in which he told me:
I am afraid that I hold to my belief that it would be wrong for me to intervene to prevent any decision by BSC affecting the future of this works.
I believe that the British Steel Corporation and the Government are embarking upon a course of action which might well deeply injure the social fabric of my constituency. I call for a debate partly because I know—I draw here from some of my experience in the previous Government—that there are very few jobs currently in the pipeline to take the place of any lost in steel making. I estimate the number of jobs in the pipeline for the area covering my constituency as being only in hundreds, let alone 9,000.
I believe that in allowing the BSC to make the statement which it is to make today the Government are conniving in an action which is unjust, unwise and totally without humanity.
When will we have a statement, and when might there be a debate? For the record, the 1970–74 Conservative Administration said that they would close steel making at Shotton. The last Labour

Government stopped that closure. I deduce that the Tory leopard has not changed its spots.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration. He learnt of the impending announcement at only 3 o'clock this afternoon. I listened with great care to the statement that the hon. Member made about his constituency and the steel industry.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. The House knows that I do not decide whether the matter shall be debated. My powers are limited to deciding whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow.
I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member's representations, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to comment on your statement. This matter is occurring this afternoon and events are still unclear. In view of that, and of the great importance of the subject, Mr. Speaker, can you indicate to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and the House whether he may have the opportunity of raising the matter again on Monday with the possibility of your giving fresh consideration to his application?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I cannot commit myself on that matter.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are concerned with a serious decision that will affect not only the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) but all of Merseyside, which has the highest level of unemployment in this country. We did not hear of the matter until after the Leader of the House had answered questions about next week's business and no hon. Member could ask him whether he could find time for such a debate.
In view of those facts, may we not again plead with you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter be considered early next week? It is of great importance to our area, and we need a quick and early debate.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have acted unusually in allowing points of order on a ruling that I have given. It is not customary to take points of order on a ruling given by the Speaker. I shall listen to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and then comment on the points made.

Mr. Cryer: When the question of The Times was raised, Mr. Speaker, you indicated to the House that in the near future you would consider a debate on that newspaper's closure, which was deemed by yourself and the House to be an important matter. There is therefore a precedent. You said that a serious and important matter would be uppermost in your mind when assessing priorities. Further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is beginning to dispute my ruling, and I cannot have questions about the ruling that I have made. There are precedents both ways. I have to take into account all the factors.

Mr. Leadbitter: Mr. Leadbitter rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any points of order about my ruling.

Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns a matter previous to your ruling. During business questions I raised with the Leader of the House the importance of the subject of steel. With great respect to the House, I raised the matter last week, too. I emphasise that I was greatly appreciative of the appraisal by the Leader of the House of the urgency of the matter. Having regard to what he has since learnt—and perhaps he was aware of it before he spoke—will the Leader of the House use his good offices and indicate whether time will be given?

Mr. Speaker: Business questions have finished.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not disputing your

ruling, which I respect. My point concerns the principle of the way in which the announcement appears to have been made. During business questions I asked the Leader of the House about the possibility of a statement on another subject, namely, the dispersal of Civil Service jobs. He said that it was his belief that important statements of that nature should be made in the House. If public utilities such as British Shipbuilders, the British Steel Corporation and the Post Office deal with jobs in that manner outside the House, it denudes hon. Members of the right to put their constituents' case in the House. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the principle must be given early consideration.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) has said, the responsibility for opening or closing individual plants is a matter for the British Steel Corporation and other corporations. It is not a direct ministerial responsibility.

Mr. James Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House has widened the point of order, may I put this to him? In view of the history of the Government's intervention in these matters, including the decisions that were taken involving the closure of a steel works in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), when undertakings were given that Shotton would remain open, will he please examine the Government's responsibility and have a statement made by the appropriate Minister on Monday?

BILL PRESENTED

COMPETITION

Mr. Secretary Nott, supported by Mr. Secretary Joseph, Mr. Peter Walker, Mr. Secretary Howell, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Norman Fowler and Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, presented a Bill to abolish the Price Commission; to make provision for the control of anti-competitive practices in the supply and acquisition of goods and the supply and securing of


services; to provide for references of certain public bodies and other bodies corporate to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; to provide for the investigation of prices and charges by the Director General of Fair Trading; to repeal the remaining provisions of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 July and to be printed [Bill 40].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House—and only by leave of the House—I shall put together the Questions on the five motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Supplementary Benefits (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Coal Industry (Limit on Gran) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.17 p.m.

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Bolton, West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the Bill, but it has implications for all our procedures in the House and the way in which Bills are presented and considered. It concerns two related facts. The first concerns part of the statement made at the front of the Bill called the explanatory memorandum. At the bottom is a section entitled " Financial and manpower effects of the Bill ", which states:
The Bill has no implications either of a financial character or for public service manpower requirements.
That is incorrect. I refer the House to page 439 of " Erskine May ". There is no obligation on anyone who is bringing in a Bill to present the House with an explanatory memorandum, but there is an obligation on anyone who presents such a memorandum to make sure that it is accurate. The Government have failed to do that.
The eighth special report of the Estimates Committee says in reference to financial memoranda in explanatory memoranda:
where it is not practical to provide in the financial memorandum an estimate of the public expenditure likely to be involved under a Bill because of its permissive nature, then estimates on an illustrative basis should be given.
It goes on to say that it is most important to ensure that the quotation of illustrative figures is not likely to prove misleading to Parliament. If it is important that illustrations are not misleading to Parliament, it is even more important that basic statements, such as the one at the front of this Bill, are not misleading.
However, the second point is the one that I really wish to raise. If this Bill has no financial implications, it is not necessary for the House to be presented with a money resolution for the Bill. On page 756 " Erskine May " states:
any provision in a bill which is likely materially to raise the level of relevant local authority expenditure is liable to raise the level of rate support grant. A money resolution is


therefore needed to cover the resulting charge on the Consolidated Fund.
That is very clear. Statements were given by the then Government in 1949 that any financial implications in Bills of this kind would be accompanied by money resolutions. That undertaking still holds firm, and has been reiterated by successive Governments.
Therefore, it is clear that if this Bill has financial implications the House should have been presented with a money resolution. Having said that, it is incumbent upon me to prove that there are financial implications if I am saying that there should be a money resolution.
The examples that I wish to cite in detail involve money that has been committed for spending under this Bill in my area of Bolton. There has been additional expenditure in Bolton recently as a direct result of the Bill. Basically, Bolton had intended to go comprehensive in September. Parents and teachers had been told that there would be no 11-plus this year, parents had been asked for their choice of comprehensive schools, and arrangements had been made for comprehensive intakes. That was the situation before 3 May. After the Queen's Speech, when the new Government announced their intentions of bringing forward this Bill, the local Conservative-controlled council in Bolton changed its mind and said that it would not go comprehensive in September after all. It is quite clear that the changes that have been made in Bolton are dependent on this legislation.
It is now up to me to make clear the timing of these events because the financial implications result from Bolton taking advantage of the conditions in the Bill. At the end of May the local education authority instituted emergency selection procedures. It decided to hold an 11-plus examination this year and this cost a great deal of money. Money was required for examination papers, administrative and postage costs, and overtime payments to the staff involved. I can provide details if necessary. All these items of expenditure are important ones to which the Government contribute through the rate support grant.
Also, there has been a great deal of wasted expenditure in Bolton, especially on teachers' pay. Some head teachers

have been appointed to schools which do not exist, and there will be changes in the building programme. The local authority is spending £33,000 on teachers' pay and £73,000 on the school buildings simply because of these changes in the Bill. All this would not have happened—indeed, could not have happened—had it not been for this Bill.
Another matter that should be mentioned this afternoon, as well as the expenditure by the local authority, is the promise made by the present Secretary of State when he came to Bolton before the election. Some of his views were reiterated by his party leader a week later—not that this did the Tories much good in Bolton. The present Secretary of State said that Bolton Conservatives should not implement the comprehensive scheme but should hang on to the grammar schools. He then said that if the council did not go comprehensive he would be prepared to provide extra funds for Bolton schools. I believe that that means that the Secretary of State has committed the Government to providing extra funds to Bolton if it took advantage of this Bill. I have here press statements which say that the Tories would give Bolton more money for new school buildings as a reward for fighting against going comprehensive.
The only way the local authority could fight against going comprehensive was by using this Bill. Therefore, it is obvious that the Bill has financial implications through the rate support grant on the Consolidated Fund, and because of the commitment of the Secretary of State to Bolton. This commitment must fall on the Department of Education and Science. Therefore, I think that this grave and serious matter should be considered now before we proceed to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to the hon. Lady's extended point of order with great care. I could have told her at the beginning that the substance of an explanatory memorandum to a Bill before the House is the responsibility of the Member in charge of the Bill and is not a matter for the Chair. However, I wanted to give her an opportunity to make her case. The points that the hon. Member has just raised would have been entirely relevant had they been repeated in a debate on the Third Reading, but this is


an argument for a debate, and not a point of order for me.

Mrs. Taylor: I mentioned two points, Mr. Speaker. The explanatory memorandum was only one. The other concerned the absence of the money resolution when it was required.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept what you say about the explanatory memorandum, but, although it is not an integral part of the Bill and not relevant to order, it is an indication of the form that the Bill should take, and of the absence or presence of a money resolution.
Money resolutions are covered by paragraph 4 on page 756 of " Erskine May ". The issue first arose in the post-war Labour Government when an equalisation grant was introduced for the first time to the extent that almost all local government expenditure had many expenditure implications. That is why a very important statement on future practice of the House was made by my distinguished Lewisham predecessor, Mr. Herbert Morrison, who was then Leader of the House. His statement was not made in any partisan way, but was an announcement in his capacity as Leader of the House. It declared what would be the proper practice of the House in such cases, and that is now set out in " Erskine May ".
4.30 p.m.
" Erskine May " states:
 This undertaking "—
that is, Herbert Morrison's undertaking—
may be presumed to hold good for the present system of rate support grants which has superseded the system of equalisation grants.
" Erskine May " makes it absolutely clear that where a Bill involves local authority expenditure of the kind indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), where that money has already been spent in preparation for this Bill—similar to the money that was spent in preparation for the constitutional Bills that were recently before Parliament—and where the Secretary of State has specifically and publicly promised substantial public expenditure, the introduction of a Bill without a money resolution is dis-

orderly. Therefore, I believe that we should not continue to consider this Bill until we have resolved the question whether the Bill is orderly.
The statement in 1949 by Herbert Morrison was clear. It laid down that, where local authority expenditure of this nature was involved, all Governments would introduce a money resolution to enable hon. Members to table amendments. When the Government decide not to bring in a money resolution simply because they want to rush the matter through in a few weeks, it is wrong that Back Benchers should not have the opportunity properly to discuss the matter in Parliament.
I believe that we cannot go on discussing this Bill now that the facts have been put to you, Mr. Speaker. This has nothing to do with the explanatory memorandum, but relates to the fact that my hon. Friend has now set out the full details of her case. Furthermore, the Bill has not been put before the House in the form laid down by our " bible ", " Erskine May ". In those circumstances, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot now properly proceed and that we should have a full explanation by the Government of what has been going on. Alternatively, there should be a motion before the House to enable us to consider the matter so that the Government may bring back the Bill in another form. It would then no doubt be in order for us to proceed upon it.

Mr. Peter Archer: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have just had a very long point of order. Perhaps I should reply to it now since it might save the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) having to make his contribution.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has confused the fact that a money resolution is necessary when money is authorised by a Bill. If he examines the Bill, he will find no authorisation for any money whatever. I have to rule that a money resolution is not necessary.

Mr. Archer: While not challenging your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could have your guidance on a point of construction.
I understand from page 758 of " Erskine May " that a financial resolution is necessary when a Bill authorises new and distinct expenditure. As I understand it, that is expenditure not authorised under existing law.
It appears from what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) that what the present Bill does is to empower local authorities which are bent on mischief to bring about a situation in which grant is claimable, whereas otherwise they would not have been able to bring about that situation. With great respect, in those circumstances, does it not follow that the Bill authorises new and distinct expenditure?

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to deal with a slightly different aspect. I wish to draw your attention to the penultimate paragraph of " Erskine May " on page 756 on the subject of Private Members' Bills. I hope that if you cannot rule on this matter now, Mr. Speaker, you will do so next week.
Will you inform the House whether the Bill, as presented, could have been produced by a private Member without a money resolution? " Erskine May " refers to the example of a Private Member's Bill of wide scope which involves expenditure by local authorities. It does not refer to a Bill imposing a charge. It refers merely to public expenditure by a local authority. In that case, the Government of the day would be required to move a money resolution because a private Member cannot take such a step under the rules of the House.
I submit that the matter could be settled quite simply. Could the Bill have been introduced by a private Member without a money resolution? The answer to that question is " Yes" or " No ". Although you may not be able to give an answer today, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if there is any doubt on the matter, we should not proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough): I am not questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker. You more than anybody know that practising teachers are aware of when money has to be expended and when it does not have

to be expended. However, I am in some confusion following what I am sure was a perfectly good ruling.
If a Bill says in good faith, as I am sure is the case, that there are no financial implications and no public service manpower requirements involved, I am inclined to take such a statement as being correct. But as soon as I go on to the Bill I see that it is as clear as daylight to us all—certainly to Labour Members—that the Bill has financial implications and requirements in respect of public service manpower. Therefore, surely we should put the Bill off until we can be given a detailed explanation of how such nonsense came to be written on the front of the Bill.

Mr. John Morris: Without in any way wishing to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether we could have your assistance on a fairly narrow point? If we have a clear view on that point, it may resolve the problem of the absence of a money resolution.
I am concerned about whether there is a resulting charge on the Consolidated Fund. If there is no such charge on that fund, that would dispose of the matter of the absence of a money resolution. If there is a resulting charge on the fund, it follows from " Erskine May " that a money resolution is needed. That could arise—and perhaps this matter is wider than your earlier ruling—either directly or indirectly from the Bill. Paragraph 756 reads as follows:
Since under those Acts"—
the Local Government Act 1966 and the equivalent Scottish Act—
the Minister in fixing the level of rate support grant is required to take into account the amount of relevant and local authority expenditure, any provision in a Bill which is likely materially to raise the level of relevant local authority expenditure is liable to raise the level of rate support grant.
That is the issue, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, it is as clear as a pikestaff that a money resolution is needed to cover the resulting charge on the Consolidated Fund. That is the simple matter on which I should like to have an assurance.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said that the matter was as clear as a pikestaff. If it were as clear as a pikestaff, I do not understand why the Bill has been before the House for such


a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] If it has just appeared, I withdraw what I said. However, I understood that the Bill had been in Committee upstairs. I must stay with my ruling, namely, that a money resolution is not necessary. I spent much time this morning considering this question because I was given notice of the point of order which the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) intended to raise.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am puzzled about the matter because in Committee we pursued it at great length, to get more information. We did get that information and it suggested that there were costs involved. In essence, the Bill is concerned with repealing the 1976 Act. When that Act was passed there was a money resolution. It seems od that because of the procedures of the House there has to be a money resolution in orer to move an-Act but that if that Act is to be repealed the converse should be true and a money resolution should be necessary again. I hope that you will consider that point. I hope that you will consider clause 1(3), in which a local authority has to seek approval for the revocation of the order. That involves expenditure, first, in making the decision to go ahead with the revocation and, secondly, in carrying out that decision. Therefore, there are powers under the Act for local authorities to make expenditure.

Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was obliged for your assistance a few moments ago, but I wonder whether the Government are being fair to you. Have they or have they not disclosed the reality of the position? I return to my original question. Is there or is there not a resulting charge on the Consolidated Fund? In fairness, that is not a matter for you to answer but it is a matter for the Government to answer. Given the information that is to hand, that a local authority in one instance has spent about £18,000 by way of preparation for the bussing of pupils and matters of that kind, it follows that that sort of expenditure attracts rate support grant. Therefore, the Minister would be obliged to increase his contribution to meet that RSG element in accordance with the

principles enunciated in " Erskine May." If that is the case, there is a resulting charge on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, these are matters that should be raised in debate. I have given my ruling that a money resolution is not necessary. It is time that the House moved on to the new clauses.

Mr. Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In no way would I quarrel with your judgment on a matter of information that is to hand. However, the Government have been unfair by not disclosing the full picture to you. It is the clear responsibility of the Government to tell the House whether or not there is a resulting charge on the Consolidated Fund. If you have not been fully appraised of the facts, will you reconsider your ruling?

Mr. Archer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty in which the House finds itself is that if the Bill reaches the statute book it will not be possible for the courts to go beyond the procedures of the House in order to see whether those procedures were properly observed. It will then be for the courts to see whether, on the wording of the statute, a local authority is empowered to bring about the paying of a grant. In those circumstances there would be no further redress and it is for that reason that some of us, at the risk of being tiresome, invite you to reconsider your ruling before it is too late to do anything about the matter.

Mr. Speaker: There is a third opportunity for redress. There is the Third Reading, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows well.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman making a new point or is he pursuing an old one?

Mr. Price: It is a new point, which is tangential to the other point. It has been said that it is a little late to bring up the matter. However, events of this sort occurred during the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, during the last Parliament. At that time, although the Examiners had examined the Bill, you


were not the sort of adamant Speaker that other Speakers might have been; you were flexible. You listened to Back Benchers, anxious, as you always are, to protect their rights. It is common ground that the Bill does not lay any particular charge. However, the words of Mr. Herbert Morrison indicated that Bills do not have to produce a new charge to create a money resolution.
4.45 p.m.
When Mr. Morrison referred to the Local Government Act 1948 which introduced the new system of equalisation grants he said:
This grant differs from the old block grant which it replaced in that any increase in the expenditure of an authority receiving equalisation grant results directly and immediately in an increase in its equalisation grant. Consequently any Bill increasing rate-borne expenditure by more than an insignificant amount now requires cover in the Financial Resolution for the resulting increase in equalisation grant."—[Official Report, 10 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1664.]
I cannot imagine a more direct, clear and forthright statement of the constitutional position than that. If the Government were to say that they would take the first part of the Report stage now but leave the Third Reading until a further date, in all the traditions of the House that would be a proper and constitutional statement. If they refuse to do so we can make judgments about their motives for wanting to put forward a Bill in this way—clean against constitutional precedent, as laid down—and rush it through every stage in the House tonight. I urge you to re-read Herbert Morrison's words. To me, as a humble and simple Back Bencher, they are clear.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My local authority is one of the few that are affected by the Bill. There are expenditure implications for the local authority if the Bill passes. Does your ruling mean that if the Bill does not overtly refer to those expenditure implications the fact that they are incurred by the passage of the Bill means that a money resolution is not needed? If the money is expended and the Government should have tabled a money resolution, does that mean that the authority will be debited by the district auditor for having incurred unlawful expenditure? If it does mean that, there are serious

implications for my councillors. I ask for a clear ruling about the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am ruling only on the Bill, and I shall make no general ruling. The Bill does not alter the charge, and a money Bill is not necessary. I have made my ruling and the House should move on to new clause 1.—[HON. MEMBERS: " No, no, no."] Order. It is no good for hon. Members to say " No, no, no " to me when I have answered the points of order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) referred to my flexibility. I have listened to more points of order today than on any other day since I have been Speaker.

Mr. Roger Stott: What about the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not argue about that matter. That was a point of order upon which I ruled on the following day.

Mr. Neil Kinnock (: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With no discourtesy or challenge, and not even with a charge about inflexibility, because I recognise the difficulties that that might provoke, but with judiciousness I should like to raise a matter. You will be aware that I raised this matter with your office at 1.30 pm. That was because it was only in the course of the morning that it became apparent to those of us who have studied and examined the Bill that in the case of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) there are implications that arise from the way that the Bill is drafted, together with the memorandum that we see before us. When we became aware of that, we naturally went to the sources that you have examined in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker. We concluded that a money resolution was necessary only for expenditure arising from the provisions of a Bill. Even in the short time since the matter was first raised by my hon. Friend we have been able to demonstrate that if the provisions of the Bill are taken advantage of by local authorities, expenditure will be required. Indeed, expenditure will be wasted and implications may follow for the local authorities concerned, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who is acutely conscious of these matters since


the North Yorkshire authority is affected by the Bill.
We pursued the matter and discovered that a certain permissiveness was built in. If the monetary implications of a Bill could be considered to be peripheral; there may still be no need to table a financial resolution. The question is what is peripheral. We have heard the figure of £18,000 mentioned. Even higher figures, in excess of £70,000, have been referred to. If advantage is taken of the Bill, even a proportion of the £2 million spent so far by the North Yorkshire council in pursuit of comprehensive reorganisation could come under consideration.
" Erskine May " says that
any provision in a bill which is likely materially to raise the level of relevant local authority expenditure"—
I emphasise " local authority expenditure "—
is liable to raise the level of rate support grant.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, the obvious relationship between the two sums. " Erskine May " continues:
A money resolution is therefore needed to cover the resulting charge on the Consolidated Fund.
We have further wisdom from the eighth special report of the Estimates Committee, which was referred to by my right hon. And learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). That said:
Where it is not practicable to provide in the Financial Memorandum an estimate of the public expenditure likely to be involved under a Bill because of the permissive nature of the powers sought, estimates on an illustrative basis should be given.
We have had since mid-morning to consider the matter, while you, Mr. Speaker, have had only since mid-afternoon to consider it. We have come to expect either a firm money resolution or a figure on an illustrative basis when a Bill is to concern itself with money. We are not used to a situation in which it is said that there are no implications for finance in a Bill when we can demonstrate clearly from local authority sources that there are financial implications.
I hope that you will permit me to refer to what the Secretary of State said, since that may have a bearing on your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. and learned

Gentleman said, from a sedentary position that we had had three weeks to consider these matters. You made a similar reference earlier, Mr. Speaker.
I referred to these matters in Committee when I said:
The explanatory memorandum states: ' The Bill has no implications either of a financial character or for public service manpower' I suppose that in many respects that is technically correct, but these authorities which are trying to freeze progress towards comprehensive education and to maintain selective systems and which will take full advantage of subsection (3) of clause 1 are engaging in the most enormous waste of public resources."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 June 1979; c. 34.]
Even after examining the Bill and its implications, I thought that we were concerned with little more than a technicality. It is only through telephonic contact with local authority sources that we who have been interested in little else over the past few weeks have become fully aware of the implications of the Bill
As we who have studied the Bill have only just become aware that there are major financial consequences implications, and given the evidence in " Erskine May " and the other sources that have quoted and the fact that we have yet to hear an explanation from the Government for using this form of words, I hope that we may either suspend the sitting or adjourn consideration of the Bill so that further time may be given for reflection for the benefit of the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I realise the depth of feeling of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and his right hon. and hon. Friends. I have listened with care, because I am a servant of the House and I want to do the right thing.
I have to watch the technicalities concerning a money charge and see whether a Bill meets them. Other arguments are not my concern. However, although I know that it is disorderly to interrupt the House in a debate, I hope that hon. Members will allow me to return at 6 o'clock and make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) is grateful for what you


have said about looking at the matter again.
I understand that the hon. Member for Bedwellty was good enough to indicate to you that the point was to be raised. May I make clear that no indication was given to me or the Government that what is, according to the hon. Member for Bedwellty, a tecnical matter was to be raised? We were given no warning of that fact, or that remarks that I had made outside the House were also to be raised.
If the Opposition wished to have the matter considered they might at least have had the courtesy to inform the Department, so that I might have been able to assist you, Mr. Speaker, and the House.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I acquit myself of the charge of discourtesy? If precedent means anything in the House, it is reasonable for me to point out that the previous Labour Government were not the beneficiaries of the Conservative Party in regard to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
In addition, vengeance is the Lord's and not the Opposition's. There was no vengeful instinct in our not raising the matter with the Secretary of State. That was caused by the novelty of the event and the fact that evidence has only recently been made available to us. In addition, when we raised the matter in Committee we received no reasonable response from the Government.
We are under no obligation to run to the Government. Our only obligation is courtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, and I tried to discharge that.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am not surprised that he quotes the Scriptures to me. I shall look up that reference again. I think that it is:
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
I suggest that I should return at 6 o'clock and make a brief statement when I have reconsidered the mater.

5 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: May I thank you on behalf of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, for the manner in which you have responded. It is not

our desire to challenge your ruling in any way, but we think that on our construction of " Erskine May ", especially of page 756, the information that has come to light merits reconsideration.
When you have considered the matter, Mr. Speaker, it will be for the Secretary of State to indicate, if he will, whether it is the case that local authorities have incurred, or are in the process of incurring, expenditure which would fall on the Consolidated Fund. That seems to us to be the essential point.
For the Secretary of State's benefit I should like to quote the essential points from " Erskine May ", which is quite clear on this matter. After hearing these points, which are quite simple, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may change his mind. " Erskine May " says that
rate support grant is payable to local authorities ".
That is clear. Secondly,
 under those Acts "—
the Local Government Acts—
 the Minister in fixing the level of rate support grant is required to take into account the amount of relevant local authority expenditure ".
There is no difference between us on that. Thirdly,
any provision in a bill which is likely materially to raise the level of relevant local authority expenditure is liable to raise the level of rate support grant.
I do not know whether there is a difference between us on that, but to us the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has provided shows that there is an increase in the expenditure which is likely to raise the level of the rate support grant. If that is so, " Erskine May " continues:
 A money resolution is therefore needed ".
This is the issue. I have tried to sum it up in as uncontentious a way as possible for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Secretary of State to check what expenditure is being incurred and whether it will fall on the Consolidated Fund. Then he can help us when you return with your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Further to what the Leader of the Opposition has just said, Mr. Speaker, with respect, the point that I was trying to make earlier was that I had not been given the opportunity


to consider this matter or invited to answer the sort of point that the right hon. Gentleman has made.
All that I would say at this stage is that the only effect of the Bill is to relieve local authorities of obligations that they would otherwise have. As far as I know and am advised, it has no financial implications at all. But, of course, if the Leader of the Opposition asks me to take further advice on that matter, I shall do so. I have told the House of the advice that I have at present. I had not had an opportunity to consider that advice until I entered the Chamber when the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) was on her feet.

Mr. Speaker: Whilst I am considering the matter further, I shall have a transcript of everything that has been said.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has just said that he will seek to ascertain from his Department the facts about the expenditure by local authorities and about any possible charge upon the Consolidated Fund. In view of that Statement, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that you have undertaken to examine the matter, surely it would be in the interests of the House and the speedy passage of the Bill, if it was in order, if you considered a suspension of our proceedings for a short time so that you might give the matter the urgent consideration that you have undertaken to give it. Then the Secretary of State might come to you privately to give you the benefit of the researches within his Department, for you to take them into account in giving a ruling.
I seriously suggest that it would be in the interests of the House to have a temporary suspension of our proceedings so that those necessary and desirable steps might be taken. It would be in the interests of parliamentary democracy that the proper advice and knowledge should be in your possession, Mr. Speaker. Then you may give a ruling on the full facts, made available to you as a result of the statement that the Secretary of State has just made.

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that it was in the interests of the House

to continue whilst I was considering the matter.

Mr. James Callaghan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hoped that I had brought this matter to an end by what I said, but as you are returning at 6 o'clock, will the Government please, to prevent its being an irregular procedure, consider moving the adjournment of consideration of the Bill then—I am not asking for it now—so that proper consideration may be given to the matter? I ask the Leader of the House, if he is to avoid difficulty on this matter, to consider what is a very reasonable request.

Mr. Speaker: I expect that a reply will come in due course.

New Clause 1

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF POLICY BY LOCAL
EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

' Those local education authorities to whom sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Education Act 1976 applied in whole or in part prior to their repeal by this Act shall publish and submit to the Secretary of State by 1 July each year a statement which shall set out the policy adopted and the arrangements made by that authority for the ensuing educational year in respect of:

(a) the nature, basis and criteria used in any process of allocation of pupils to selective secondary schools, other than special schools, maintained by that authority;
(b) the arrangements made for transfer of pupils from one category of selective school to another and the numbers of pupils so transferring in the preceding educational year;
(c) the nature, range and extent of the courses and options offered in each of the selective secondary schools maintained by that authority, together with a schedule of capitation or other financial allocation and staffing quotas to each type of selective school maintained by that authority.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Would you be kind enough to indicate what other clauses you would suggest should be considered with new clause 1?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I am oblige to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. It is proposed that all the new clauses that have been selected should be taken together for a general debate, and if necessary at the end separate Divisions can take place. That means that with new clause 1 we are to take the following:

New clause 3—Transfer.
New clause 5—Resources.
New clause 6—Pupil mobility.
New clause 8—Proportions allocated to different types of secondary schools.

Mr. Mikardo: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Spearing: I do not know what additonal money obligations my new clause might imply. I suspect that it would have a marginal expenditure effect, but I shall not worry about that side of the matter. I hope that we have dealt with that matter for at least an hour.
What I commend to the Government and their supporters is that the clause stands on its own. It is not a wrecking clause. It would not change any of the legal disobligation that the Bill puts on authorities. It would place another obligation and duty on the local authorities involved—there are 59 of them—to report along the lines that the clause indicates.
The Government should adopt the clause on the basis of their own criteria. First, the Bill affects freedom of individuals and parents' rights. We on the Opposition Benches believe that it diminishes individual rights and the proper rights of parents as defined in the 1944 Education Act.
Secondly, the Bill should couple two very important words, of which I am sure the Government will often remind us—" rights " and " responsibilities ". It gives choice to local authorities additional to that which the law permits now. If the Bill is to be passed, reciprocal responsibilities should be placed on the authorities. If Conservative Members are so keen on the Bill, on its provisions and the additional choices that it provides, they should not shrink from accepting the responsibilities that the clause would impose. If they do, I suggest that they are not confident about their case.
I shall listen carefully to the reply of the Under-Secretary of State in what I expect will be an extended debate. I shall be interested to hear what he says on the matter of principle. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will disagree with much of what I say in support of the clause, on grounds of principle or experience, but I do not believe that he can disagree with the basic points that I am now making about rights and responsibilities and the importance of the individual.
My first point relates to the number of individuals who would be assisted by the insertion of this new clause. Details failed to emerge in Committee concerning the number of pupils in secondary schools who will be adversely affected if this Bill goes through. I put a question to the Under-Secretary on 11 June asking him if he would set out in the Official Report a table showing the number of pupils in each type of secondary school in the 59 local authorities concerned and the percentage of those pupils in each of the main type of secondary school. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman declined to answer, saying that it would take an excessive amount of space. He also said that the information could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
He was good enough to give me the raw figure in a computer print-out which the House of Commons Library did not take long to convert. He has now provided, in a written answer, almost all the figures that I requested. The figures provide a most important factual basis to the debate on which we are embarking. Hon. Members may not realise the extent to which pupils in these 59 authorities are still in secondary modern schools. The total at 1 January was 383,000. Even more important and more interesting is the distribution of those pupils. In many authorities, there are few modern schools left and the bulk of the secondary school population is in comprehensive schools. There are a few authorities where the opposite is the case. In some, there is virtually, no comprehensive provision.
In Bolton, which was the subject of the points of order, there are no fewer than 11,000 children in modern schools, 4,000 in grammar schools and 4,000 in comprehensive schools. In Liverpool, there are 11,000 in modern schools. In Tameside,


there are 12,000; in Trafford, a district of Manchester, 11,000; in Kingston, 8,000; in Sutton, 7.000; in Cheshire, 18,000; in Cornwall, 31,000; in Gloucestershire, 11,000; in Devon, 17,000; and in Kent, 47,000. This shows a substantial number of pupils in modern schools. I will refer later in my remarks to what constitutes a modern school, and its implications.
More interesting than the bulk figures is the actual percentage of the secondary school population in any of these authorities. If the Bill goes through, local authorities will be given the opportunity to maintain these percentages. In Bury, the percentage is 66 per cent.; in Tame-side, 66 per cent.; in Trafford, 62 per cent.; in Kingston, 84 per cent.; in Sutton, 59 per cent.; in Buckinghamshire, 50 per cent.; in Lincolnshire, 46 per cent.; and in Norfolk, 44 per cent. I have given these figures because of what we on the Opposition Benches regard as the truncated provision available in secondary modern schools—not only the truncated provision but the divorce that the continuation of separatist education makes not only among pupils and families but, inevitably, among teachers. That is a divisive factor, which the Minister will have experienced. He knows that it is not a happy situation for the teaching profession.
The issues with which we are dealing go to the depths of the educational history of this country. People may think that the comprehensive versus separatist issue is relatively new. It is not. Nor is the basis of this Bill. The Minister is entitled to say that he is concerned with the age-old balance of British education between compulsion and the use of the law, and options and free choice. I see that the Minister nods his head. Much of British history and the history of this House in education has been concentrated on deciding where to strike the balance.
5.15 p.m.
Over a century ago there were long debates in this House concerning the principle of compulsory education. It may seem extraordinary that in those times there were people who opposed compulsory education in principle. They argued that the voluntary agencies, Churches and charities should continue to offer education for those who wanted it. They campaigned for freedom of choice. Why

should parents, they asked, be bound over by a court to send their child to school? It was regarded as an incursion on British liberties. Those people had a right to express their view. A long time elapsed before the 1870 Act decide that, in the community interest, such freedom should be eroded and that community advantage would be heightened by imposing the law.
People may ask how this relates to the present position. We tend to forget that the 1870 Act was not an Act for education, as we understand it. It was an elementary Act. In other words, local authorities—the new boards—were required only to plug the gaps in the existing structure and were bound in law only to provide the elements of education—reading, writing and arithmetic. They were not required to provide anything else. When they were first set up in the early 1870s, a lot of debate took place in the education boards as to whether they should go further. That is the basis of our present debate. A modern school cannot go further than the definition and the role assigned to it by the education authority.
The nub of the matter was contained in a remarkable debate in the London School Board, which took place in July 1871. A remarkable and perceptive statement made by the then Professor Huxley, a great educationist and a wise and farseeing man, was reported in The Times on 6 July 1871. A motion had been placed before the London School Board to permit French and Latin to be taught in its schools. The board was debating whether these subjects should be allowed. A lot of the argument was opposed to the two subjects, on the basis that they provided too wide an education. Professor Huxley, according to The Times,
warned the members of the Board of the dangers to society which were certain to arise if education were not thrown open to all without restriction. A boy, he said, was taught in his Catechism to do his duty in that station of life in which it had pleased God to call him, and how was any boy to know to what station he was called unless he tried?
Professor Huxley would be astonished to know that in 1979 the Government were coming before the House saying that it would be made legally possible for local authorities to put the block on, in much the same way as people in 1871 were advocating a block on schools at that time. The parallel is almost exact.


That has been the history of the development of secondary education in the last 150 years. This nasty little Bill is in direct line with the Gradgrinds of the London School Board who were opposing the teaching of Latin or French in schools. They did not succeed, and we know the results.
Indeed, the London School Board introduced towards the end of the century the higher grade schools, which began to broaden out into education as we all understand it—as the Under-Secretary and I understand it to be. They provided French, art classes and workshops and were beginning to produce a real secondary education—not the grammar schools or the voluntary private sector, but the London School Board, a very good education authority.
Then someone complained to the district auditor that all the fancy bits and pieces were costing too much in rates and the famous Cockerton judgment meant that in higher grade schools real education had to stop. In 1902, we had a Tory Act, the so-called " Balfour Act " which said that there should not be secondary education for all, which the TUC wanted as long ago as 1880 and which this Bill, in essence, is ending. Instead, there would be grammar schools or county secondary schools—newly founded under that Act—for those likely to benefit from secondary education. The seeds of selection that this Bill perpetuates in the 59 authorities, by law, were planted in 1902.
That Act was not really Mr. Balfour's Act at all. If anything, it was Mr. Chamberlain's Act, but even more it was the Act of a gentleman whose ghost must be haunting this Chamber, if not the Official Box—Sir Robert Morant. He laid the foundations of our secondary education for this century. It was his idea to have the elite form of education. At least, he put it into statutory form in the 1902 Act.
Sir Robert Morant had wonderful qualifications. He went to Winchester. He was the first Secretary of the Board of Education after 1902 and was really the civil servant behind that Act. So this all happened even 70 years ago. His other great educational qualification was that he was the tutor to the sons of the King of Siam. He was therefore excel-

lently qualified to lay the foundations of our educational system.
Up to 1944, not only were French, workshop practice and other subjects not taught in the elementary schools; it was illegal for them to be taught. The elementary school headmaster, until 1944, could not teach French and could not do certain other things because it was beyond even the Fisher Act of 1922 or 1923.
Hon. Members may say, " So what? What happened after the 1944 Act? " After that, of course, we had the secondary modern schools, which were nothing more than jumped-up elementary schools. They may have been very good schools—some of the elementary schools were excellent educationally—but they were nevertheless constrained. There were also the assumptions of the Norwood report, which said that only certain people could benefit from the scholastic education in the grammar schools.
So the situation was nothing to do with the 1944 Act, which gives age, aptitude and ability as the criteria for choosing a proper course. In effect, in the context of giving someone a broad education, the Bill is against the spirit of the 1944 Act, even if not against its letter. Since then, we have seen the retreat of the tripartite principle, which was founded not on any proper educational experience but on now outdated notions of IQ and the rest.
All the time that changes were being made, in the education debates of the last 15 years, the case for separatist education was never made. That is not surprising, because there is no real case for it. I have never been able to find any decent case for separatist or selective education, other than the one before us—that of the freedom to choose of the authority, which I have conceded.
Miss Frances Stevens wrote an interesting book called "The Living Tradition ", in favour of grammar schools, from which it is clear that she favoured maintaining qualities of scholasticism. Those standards are vital in society, but whether one orients one's secondary provision towards them alone is another matter.
In correspondence with me, Miss Stevens said that it was possible to have great respect for people with difficult backgrounds. She said that in the school


in which she taught there was a girl from a back-to-back house in Leeds who was highly respected, and a fine classical scholar. I asked what would have happened if she had not been a fine classical scholar, and of course I received no reply.
So I could find no proper academic or respectable argument for separatist education, until one day I came across an article by Mr. P. G. Mason, then the high master of Manchester grammar school—the high priest of elitism. Lancashire seems to be very much on the agenda today, both in origins and in terms of areas that maintain this system. Perhaps that is the influence of Manchester grammar school.
Coming upon this article, I thought, " This must be it. This is the man himself." The article was called " Different Schools for Different Children." Instead of appearing in some learned tome or perhaps a journal of psychology or a journal such as New Society, in fact it was published in Housewife, of March 1966. In that issue, we find Mr. Mason in front of a blazing coal fire in his study talking to three pupils—a pleasant vision of elitist and individualist education.
I read the article with great interest, because it was one with which I almost completely agreed, to my surprise. Among many other things, he said that
education is not a technical business concerned with implanting particular skills or knowledge, but aims at bringing out the best each boy and girl is capable of, and at helping them to live fully as individuals belonging to the society of their fellow men and women.
Excellent; wonderful. There were other quotations with which I agreed, including the nub of his argument, with which he ended:
Above all, we must see that the system never becomes more important than the individuals for whom it exists; and that as far as possible there is variety as well as equality of opportunity.
I emphasise that last phrase, " variety as well as equality of opportunity ". Mr. Mason concluded that this meant a variety of types of schools, and that was the basis of his defence of the old sort of selective education.
Of course, Mr. Mason has confused two fundamentally different things—

variety and choice within any one institution which may be available to a pupil or to the tutor in charge of the pupil, and variety of institution to which entry is limited and which is clearly against equality of opportunity. I do not think that any hon. Members would argue that it is possible—indeed, the figures show that it is impossible—to determine the abilities and competencies that are likely to develop from a child aged 11 years. The greatest lack of logic on Mr. Mason's part is that he did not appreciate the distinction between separatist types of school and comprehensive schools.
5.30 p.m.
The tripartite or bipartite structures assume that a grammar school provides a certain course for a certain sort of pupil. The grammar school's operation is bound to that purpose. It achieves so many O-levels and takes so many pupils each year. It becomes a fairly rigid production line in which individuals have to fit—if they do not fit, hard luck. The centre of gravity is the process itself.
The same is true of the few technical schools that exist. What is true of the modern school I hardly dare think. It is a school for those who are not qualified for the others, and that provides a terrible basis for the beginnings of anybody's secondary career. It means that they are denied, perhaps, some of the educational stimulation that they, as individuals, may deserve and may need if they are to have their qualities and abilities drawn out, which is the basis of any proper education process.
In other words, secondary modern schools are, by definition, similar to those restricted by law—the elementary schools of Professor Huxley. They divide children from their relatives, parent from parent, teacher from teacher and school from school. They are a divisive factor in our society.
In June I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to
state the criteria used by his Department in distinguishing schools described as modern in the compilation of official statistics.
The answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science reads:
Modern schools are secondary schools for pupils who, under a selective system, are considered to receive the education best suited to


their needs in such schools rather than in grammar or technical schools."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979.]

Mr. Kinnock: We are here because we are here because we are here.

Mr. Spearing: That is it. That answer illustrates more than anything else can, other than the absence from the Chamber of Conservative Members, the non-existence of any argument for a separatist system. There is not a decent educational or psychological argument to support such a system. The arguments in support of such a system do not have an education basis. They produce the ridiculous tautology that the Under-Secretary of State was forced into.
I return to Mr. Mason's variety. The basis of a comprehensive school—I know that some of them should be better than they are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to proceed, but this is not a Second Reading debate. There are specific matters in the new clause and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to them.

Mr. Spearing: The deficiencies in the system that the Government want, which I am outlining, would in some measure—I do not claim in great measure—be met by the clause.
I was about to say that the philosophy of the comprehensive system is to examine the needs of each pupil—that is what the Minister is so concerned about—embrace the whole range of education provision and fit it, as far as possible, to the needs of the individual pupil within the constraints of general resources. In principle, that is what the system does. We should learn how to do that rather better than at present.
That brings me directly to the new clause. If local authorities choose to exercise their freedom, which they will have every right to do under the Bill if it is enacted and which is the freedom that the Government want them to have—one side of the line in education has always been freedom as opposed to compulsion—they will have a reciprocal obligation to state the basis and criteria used in any process of pupil allocation to secondary

schools. I see no reason why that reciprocal responsibility should not apply.
For all we know, some marvellous prognostication may be discovered in Bolton. That is unlikely, but it may come about. On the other hand, it may be discovered in Rochdale. We have the right to know. Parents in Bolton, parents in Rochdale and parents in all the other 57 authorities have the right to know as well. The case is made by the Government and Conservative Members, who are constantly saying that parents have a right to know even if they are not going to give them the right to choose in this respect. If they are entitled to know, they must be given the information. Paragraph (a) of the new clause places on them that obligation.

Paragraph (b) refers to
 the arrangements made for transfer of pupils from one category of selective schools to another and the number of pupils so tranferring in the preceding educational year.
We are told so often that " brighter pupils can go from modern schools to grammar schools." If that happens, let us know that it happens. Let us know what arrangements are made. In my experience it is extremely difficult, and understandably so, to get heads to cooperate in such moves. It is against human nature. We go against the grain if we try to get anything like that going. However, let us ascertain what can be done. The usual approach is for a school to try to provide what is required on its own. That is why paragraph (c) appears in the new clause. Let us know the range and extent of the courses offered and the qualifications of the staff at the modern schools that remain. By definition they are truncated. Let us know to what extent they are truncated.
If the Bill is enacted, I should like to see some of the modern schools become more comprehensive. I know of no definition that provides that modern schools cannot teach French, engineering, drawing and technical subjects. Why should they not teach those subjects? Let them do so. Let the authorities make the appropriate statement under paragraph (c). That would be in order. I am sure that the Government would not agree with keeping secret the range and extent of courses. They may as well make it obligatory for authorities to make the appropriate statement.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State will not agree with some of my intermediate remarks but he can hardly disagree with placing an obligation on authorities, if they choose to exercise their freedom, to provide what I regard as restrictive education for 385,000 pupils.
I conclude with a short quotation from a journal of 1863. As I have said, we have been in this position before. In 1863 there was much discussion about education and The Guardian—not the present newspaper but a weekly journal—pronounced:
A town of a few thousand inhabitants requires its grammar school, its commercial academy, and its national school, and seems to separate these three institutions from one another with as much jealousy as could be displayed in guarding the barriers of an ancient aristocracy from democratic assault. The division is perhaps neither liberal nor economical: much more might be effected by a combination of resources at least in the higher departments of educational work. But the people will not have it so.
Today most people will have it so in most places—and indeed councillors have it so as well. They will learn over the years to use the new flexibility to develop the character of each school to meet the unique and changing sets of needs which it has to meet. Schools are learning to adjust their internal procedures to meet the needs of each individual pupil so that they can benefit from the whole normal range of secondary provision. Anything less is a denial of the rights of individuals. This Bill seeks by statutory means to restrict that option and those rights. Local authorities may have the right to do so provided that their electorate wish it. But in doing so they cannot evade the responsibilities that attach to such freedom. That is why, with their oft-repeated emphasis on the principles that I have enunciated, the Government should accept this new clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support new clauses 1, 3, 5 and 6.
The question whether we should extend the comprehensive system or go back to the system of grammar, technical and secondary modern or secondary schools may be argued in two ways—in terms of the educational case or the economic case. I should not be unhappy if I believed that the Government were introducing the Bill because they could produce an edu-

cational case to show that the system of grammar and secondary modern schools in the areas reverting to that system would develop fully the skills and potential of all the children in the area. The Government are going back to that system because of the economic argument. They say that they cannot afford to give every child in those areas a first-class education. They intend to give only 25 per cent. or 35 per cent. of the children a first-class opportunity. The others must make do with second best.
The new clauses test the good intentions of the Government. If they believe, on educational grounds, that they can return to the old system, they should accept the new clauses proposed by the Opposition. It would then be seen that they were concerned about the standards of education in all schools. On the other hand, if they reject the Opposition proposals, it is clear that the motivation for the Bill is an unwillingness to spend enough money on all the children in those areas and a wish to give preference to a selected group.
I refer to the question of selection. If we are arguing in favour of secondary modern and grammar schools on educational grounds, the first major problem to tackle is how many pupils should be selected for grammar and how many for secondary modern schools. There has always been a failure to give a clear answer to that question. Almost every local authority opts for a different number of pupils to be selected. Not only that—they vary the numbers from year to year. In the amendment we ask local authorities to set out the basic criterion—what proportion of children they expect to be allocated to the different types of schools.
5.45 p.m.
Let us suppose that a local authority in a catchment area must allocate 300 children between one grammar school and two secondary modern schools. What percentage does it choose to send to the grammar school? Does it choose it on educational grounds or the amount of space available in each school? If it chooses merely according to the amount of space, it may allocate 90 to the grammar school and the remainder to the secondary modern schools. However, in two or three years' time, in view of falling


rolls, the same catchment area may produce 210 children who are ready to be transferred to secondary schools.
What happens then? Does the local authority retain the 30 per cent. figure for pupils going to the grammar school. If so, the grammar school's intake drops to 63 and the other schools share the remainder. Or does it continue to allow 90 children to go to the grammar school? In other words, will a much higher percentage of the children go to the grammar school? That is an important question. It illustrates the Minister's attitude to those schools. If he says that the grammar school will remain full at all times and that the proportion of children entering will be varied, apart from the inequity from year to year it means that the grammar school is cushioned from the problem of falling rolls.
In the debate on the previous Education Bill, the Minister spent a long time going through the problems of falling rolls. If the numbers of pupils fall, pupils' choice of subjects will be decreased and problems of staffing and allocation of resources to schools will become acute. Does the Minister say that, in choosing the selection system, the number to be selected will vary and that therefore all grammar and secondary modern schools must experience the problems of falling rolls, or that the grammar schools will be cushioned from the problem of falling rolls?

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My hon. Friend may know that I taught in a secondary modern school for 13 years. Before the selection process took place we knew exactly how many places were available in the grammar school. Perhaps in one year there were many good pupils but in another there were not so many—but the selection was not on educational grounds but purely on the basis of how many places were available in the grammar school at the time. That had nothing to do with educational grounds. In many cases, bright children went to secondary modem schools because they were unfortunate enough to be born in a year when there was a shortage of space in the grammar school.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is the point. If the Government were doing this on educational grounds, they would welcome the

new clauses and tell us on educational, grounds the percentages to be allocated to grammar and secondary modern schools. However, if the Government are to make the selection on grounds of economic expediency there is no need for them to say what is the proportion or what is the educational basis. They may merely say " When the schools are full, that is it." From our experience we know that that always happened in the past. The allocation was made according to the number of places available in the school. It was not based on an educational criterion.
We may test the good faith of the Conservative Party and whether it is putting forward its proposal on educational or economic grounds by assessing its attitude to the amendment.
This problem of allocation causes a great deal of parental concern. A great deal of work was done to show the deficiencies of the 11-plus selection process and the unfairness of the examination and its inability to predict the future. Many local authorities affected by the Bill decided to replace the examination with a method of assessment or an examination combined with a continuous assessment. Great hardship was caused. Parents felt that examination results and a continuous assessment system were unfair. The easiest way to relieve that unfairness is to make sure that the parents have an opportunity to see what is going on at all stages.
I was a little disappointed that new clause 2 was not selected, because it would have spelt out my view that the parents ought to have the opportunity to see the record of their child that is kept right through primary school. I press on the Minister that, if he is to retain selection, it is particularly important that there should be good consultation and a good flow of information between the primary school and the parents, so that the parents are not led to believe that the child will achieve something that it will not achieve.
The Minister has a duty, I suggest, to make it clear to local authorities that the record cards of pupils ought to be made available to parents. If there is a continuous assessment process, local authorities should make it possible for the parents to see that continual assessment and to ensure that it is correct. If the child is also graded by examination, the


parents ought to be entitled to see the examination paper to ensure that there is fairness.
In any age group, it happens fairly frequently that there are two children with the same Christian name and surname. There is always a lingering doubt in parents' minds whether some inaccurate information has got on to the record card, or whether the examination papers were mixed up. Unless there is a willingness to be absolutely open and to show parents what is on the record card, and why the continuous assessment process or the examination process produced a particular result, parents will inevitably feel that the system is unfair. When selection seems to be important to the parents, the position becomes extremely difficult if they are unable to feel that the process is working fairly.

Mr. Mikardo: An additional reason why it would be highly desirable for parents to have access to the school records of their children is that very often those school records contain annotations concerning matters other than the child's educational attainments or behaviour in the school. They can contain derogatory references sometimes not only to the child but to the child's parents as well. Of course, there is a great reluctance to let the parents see the record. It is monstrous, but that sort of thing happens.

Mr. Bennett: I fully accept the point made in my hon. Friend's intervention. It is extremely important, where children are being judged on a system of continuous assessment, that parents are able to see that everything contained in the assessment is relevant to the child's educational attainment, and that the record does not contain comments upon the child's social background.
If we are to retain this system, a test of the Conservative Party's good faith, on educational rather than economical grounds, would be its willingness to make the process of selection an open one, with the records open to the parents' inspection.
I now turn to the question of transfers. Everyone accepts that both the 11-plus system and the continuous assessment system make mistakes. No one claims that these systems are perfect. It is most important, therefore, to make it possible for

mistakes to be rectified easily. We need to see whether there is genuine good faith on the part of the Conservative Party on this issue, and whether it is prepared to look at the question of the continuous review of pupils in both the grammar school and the secondary modern, to see whether children have been misplaced and whether they ought to be moved from one school to the other, where they would be happier and able to achieve the fullest expression of their educational potential. If this is to be done, it is very important to have a system under which there is continuous assessment of pupils to determine whether a transfer is necessary. But it is also important to have cooperation between the schools, so that transfers can be encouraged and made possible.
There is also the need to ensure that courses are parallel. In many areas very often the most able group of children in the secondary modern schools do much better than the least able group in the grammar school. When the question of a transfer arises, it is often discovered that one of the schools is teaching a form of new maths or new science to a particular examination syllabus, whereas the other school is teaching to a different examination syllabus. When that is the case, transfers are extremely difficult to achieve.
Very often some of the children involved, and who would like to transfer, come from homes with very limited means, and the parents then run into the major problem of the school uniform. Often a uniform is not required in both schools but, if it is, it is often the case that one school will have a blue blazer and the other a black blazer, and immediately there are difficulties arising from this.
A test of the good faith of the Conservatives would be whether they are prepared to give instructions to make it as easy and as cheap as possible for children to transfer from one school to another. There ought to be proper coordination of subjects and syllabuses between the grammar school and the secondary modern school. There should be co-operation on matters such as school uniform. The grammar school should not set out to make itself so distinctive that there are unnecessary difficulties or expenditure for the child who wishes to


transfer. Again, it is important not to increase the problems of the child who, having been allocated a grammar school place, finds that his educational attainments make him better suited to be in a secondary modern school.

Mr. John Wells: Not having been a teacher, I do not have the benefit of that experience. The Maidstone education division still has the conventional grammar school and secondary school system, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are many transfers in the course of the year, with no difficulty whatever. It is all a matter of good will and co-operation between the heads of the schools.

Mr. Bennett: I am very pleased to hear that. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will vote for the new clause, because we are saying that there should not be any problem at all over transfers and that it should be easy for them to take place. I assume that the children in his area do not run into difficulties with school uniforms when they transfer from one school to another.
I have a lot of evidence from parents about the hardship created in having to buy one school uniform. There is even greater difficulty when their child is offered a transfer from one school to the other and they have to embark on expenditure on a second uniform. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has bought a school uniform recently but I can assure him that he would find it extremely expensive to comply with the school uniform requirements laid down by many grammar schools in this country.
I turn now to the question of allocation of resources, which I feel is the most important aspect of the new clauses. If the Conservatives are showing good faith and are putting forward their case on educational grounds, they ought to say very clearly in the debate that they want to see equality of allocation of resources to the different types of schools. If, on the other hand, they are not prepared to see this written into the Bill, they are really saying that the entire motivation for the Bill is to go back to having a first-class and a second-class system because they are not prepared to spend enough money on providing a first-class system for everyone.
With regard to buildings, for example, are the Conservatives prepared to ensure that the secondary modern schools get an adequate allocation of resources to ensure that they have proper science laboratories, libraries, sports facilities, and so on? Again, as some of the traditional grammar schools are short of various practical facilities, I wonder whether the Government are prepared to make the money available to overcome this shortage.
I would particularly press the Minister concerning library facilities. He may say that for children of 12 the Government will make an equal allocation of money. Grammar schools with a sixth form have the benefit of a very extensive school library—that is, in those local authorities which have managed to keep up their capitation fees—and as a result the rest of the school benefits. Quite clearly, when an allocation is made to a secondary modern school, it is essential to allocate sufficient money to ensure that it also has good library facilities, so that the younger children especially can take advantage of them. I hope that the Minister will spell out quite clearly his belief that there should be equality of allocation of resources to the two different types of schools.
There is the question of pupil-teacher ratio. If we look at the statistics over the years, we see that there has always been a more favourable allocation of teachers to grammar schools than to secondary modern schools. If we are to judge the good faith of the Government, there should be a clear statement that there will be equality of allocation of teachers between the two types of schools. We could go further and consider the allocation of books and other teaching aids, which should also be equally allocated.
I hope that we shall get a clear undertaking from the Government that they accept new clause 1 or the three new clauses tabled in my name. These clauses test whether the Government genuinely believe in their case on educational grounds or whether they are simply relying on the economics of the argument and are not prepared to spend sufficient money on education to give all children the opportunity of developing their full potential, as opposed to a selected few.

6 pm

Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to talk on new clause 8. It relates to the proportion of children allocated from one school to another by local education authorities which may wish to use the Act to revoke, or reintroduce, some sort of selective system in the future. This is a particularly important new clause. I could dilate about it for a very long time—

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I apologise to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for interrupting him. If you have considered the question that arose earlier, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House for you to give a ruling at this point.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite prepared to do so. However, before I do so, may I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that when I answered him rather sharply on his plain-as-a-pikestaff point I reacted rather quickly, too. Of course, any right hon. or hon. Member is entitled to raise the question at any point.
The position before the Bill was introduced was that local authorities were required to make proposals for the introduction of comprehensive schools in their areas in preference to the former system, whereby the authorities had a choice between comprehensive schools and selective schools. This Bill withdraws the requirement to make those proposals, but a money resolution, authorising financial expenditure for a selective system, has already been agreed to by the House in connection with an Act authorising that system, namely, the Education Act 1944. I have taken great pains to consider all the arguments raised by hon. Members, and it is clear to me that all I have to satisfy myself about is whether a money resolution is necessary or not, and clearly it is not.

Mr. Michael Foot: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the trouble that you have taken to give the ruling for which the House asked an hour or so ago. I suggested earlier to the Leader of the House that it might be helpful to the House in dealing with this situation—

I may say that I think your ruling, Mr. Speaker, fortifies what I suggested—if the Leader of the House were to move the adjournment of the debate now so that we might be able to comment on the position that arises from your ruling, without in any way questioning it. It would enable us to deal with the situation and to have a statement from the Government, which we have not had in the whole of these proceedings. Moreover, it appears to me—again I am not in any way questioning it—that your ruling now has introduced a further question into the matter which was certainly not raised in the earlier discussions.
I repeat again my suggestion to the Leader of the House—particularly in view of what you, Mr. Speaker, said about the difficulties of dealing with these matters on a point of order—that it would be advantageous to the House if the Leader of the House could move the adjournment of the debate. We might then be able to comment on the situation and see how we should proceed. I do not believe that anyone listening to your ruling now can doubt that the House needs considerable clarification of the matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have, of course, considered the representations that were made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, but it did not seem to me suitable to move the adjournment of the debate until you, Mr. Speaker, had made your ruling. You have made your ruling, and I do not think that it would be right for me to move the adjournment of the debate in order to discuss that ruling.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Foot At this moment, we are at a disadvantage in that any question that has to be put to the House is on a point of order. We are at a disadvantage in that anything that we may say can or might be construed as criticising your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am not seeking to criticise your ruling in any sense at all, but you yourself indicated to the House what difficulties were involved in having a ruling of this nature in the middle of the debate. What I have suggested would put any comment on these matters in order and would enable us to comment on the new situation which we believe arises from the ruling which you have made.

Once again, I ask the Leader of the House whether he will move that the debate should be adjourned. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to that appeal. If he does not, some of my hon. Friends may have points of order that they wish to raise on the matter, or it may be that we should move the adjournment of the debate. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would accept such a motion from us. But surely the best way for the Government to organise these matters so that the House is able to deal with them in the proper way is for the Leader of the House to respond to the request that I made to him some time ago and which I now repeat to him.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, suggests that a money resolution is required and that the money resolution is one that was obtained in the 1944 Act—

Mr. Speaker: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I have gone into this with great care. A money resolution is not necessary. That is all that concerns me on a point of order. The House knows that I spent three-quarters of an hour with advisers, and considering the matter myself. It is quite clear to me that since a money resolution is not necessary, there is no reason why the debate should not continue.

Mr. Bennett: With the greatest respect, I was not referring to that particular point. I was simply stating that, as a result of your ruling, it seems now that the money resolution point has been covered. However, we raised an earlier point on the question of the explanatory memorandum. I accepted, from your earlier ruling, that it was not a question for the House whether the explanatory memorandum was or was not correct, but it seems to me that it is a point on which we should have a statement from the Government giving us their attitude to the explanatory memorandum. Although it may not he out of order, it seems to me very unfortunate that we now have an explanatory memorandum that is out of keeping with the information that has been given to the House. Therefore, I support the request that was just made from this side of the House for the Government to take some action so that this matter can be regularised.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept completely your ruling that any money resolution which applies to this Bill was passed by this House in the 1944 Act. As I understand it, the statement by the predecessor of the present Leader of the House was not a statement about what was in order in money resolutions, but a statement about what has formed, ever since 1949, the constitutional precedent about the way in which the Government put down Bills that, in the powers they gave or the duties they imposed, resulted in expenditure from the Consolidated Fund. The statement made by the previous Leader of the House was connected not with order but with the convenience of the House, so that hon. Members could put down amendments. That was the whole burden of Mr. Herbert Morrison's statement.
In all the circumstances, I ask the present Leader of the House to measure up to his responsibilities on this occasion in the way that his predecessors have done, and to give the House the sort of opportunity that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) suggested, so that we can proceed to see whether the Government have followed constitutional precedent. If we do not, we are creating a completely new constitutional precedent which will obtain for the future.

Mr. Speaker: I honestly believe that I cannot help the House any further. I ruled that a money resolution was not necessary. There can be no further points of order about that question. I have gone into it in depth. Therefore, there is only one course to pursue, which is to call the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to continue his speech.

Mr. Kinnock: We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to your advisers, for the attention that you have been able to give to this matter. As a result of your ruling, our understanding is that until the repeal of the 1944 Act takes place, matters relating to money will be taken care of substantially by the provisions in the money resolution to that Act. If that is the case, I am forced to wonder why it was that a money resolution was necessary in respect of the 1976 Act.
The difficulty of discussing these matters or points of order is clearly illustrated by the fact that no one in this House even wants to suggest a contest or disagreement with your ruling. However, there are points of substance in regard to the Bill, and the House is interested in giving proper scrutiny to the Bill at its Report stage. In order to assist the House and, indeed, yourself, and for the sake of good government, perhaps the Leader of the House will undertake not to proceed to Third Reading until these matters, which have been matters of vexation to us for well over an hour, are properly looked at and answered.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that I am concerned only with whether this Bill requires a money resolution. It does not. I have given my ruling to the House. Therefore, all I can now do is to call the hon. Member for Lewisham, West to continue his speech.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not try to pursue this matter. I have made it perfectly clear that a money resolution is not necessary. I have gone into this matter at the request of the House, and have given serious consideration to it. There can be no point in pursuing it.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In no way do I wish to pursue your ruling. Indeed, that would be highly improper, and I shall not seek to do so. However, I should like to put this to you. The House is in some confusion. It would assist the good conduct of our business if the Leader of the House were able to respond to the sensible points that have been put to him. A short time ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that it was the job of the Patronage Secretary to deal with party political matters and that it was his responsibility, as Leader of the House, to look after the interests of the House of Commons and of Members of the House of Commons.
It is your job, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the interests, dignity and procedures of the House, and all that is associated with

this great institution of parliamentary democracy. I believe that it would be of great help to you, in the discharge of your very difficult duties, if the Leader of the House himself were to come to the assistance of parliamentary democracy by now offering to move the motion for the adjournment, postponement or suspension of the debate in order that we might properly explore the many fundamental issues arising from your very proper ruling in the light of the established precedents. I therefore appeal to the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to assist you, the House and democracy by moving that motion so that we may make some progress on these important issues.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot make an appeal through me on a point of order. Although I was patient and allowed him to make his statement, he cannot appeal to the Leader of the House through me.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I might describe this as a maiden point of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I seek your indulgence more than hon. Members normally do. I find myself at a loss following your ruling, because it is my understanding that one of our duties, both individually and collectively, is to consider the expenditure of moneys by the Government. As I understand your ruling, we are now in a position where there will be an expenditure of moneys as a consequence of the Bill, but there is no procedure whereby we can find out how much will be involved or express a view upon it. I am therefore at a loss to know how to discharge my duties both to the House and to my electorate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point of order very courteously. The fact is, as I have already outlined—

Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am answering a point of order. The fact is that the House has imposed on me the duty to see whether a money resolution is necessary. I have done that. Everything else is in order, because a money resolution is not necessary.

Mr. Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In no way do I wish to call into question the ruling that you have given. Rather, I wish to seek clarification of what your ruling means. You say that no money resolution is required for this Bill, because the money resolution in respect of the 1944 Act covers the present Bill. One of the reasons why we have been so circumspect in putting down amendments is that this Bill has no money resolution attached to it. Therefore, any amendments put down by the Opposition which incurred expenditure would be ruled out of order by the Chair. If we are to interpret your ruling in this way—that the 1944 money resolution is to be read with this Bill—we should be in order in putting down amendments which would incur expenditure.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has outlined the rules of the House, which he obviously knows well. He cannot table amendments that involve increasing money charges, and no money resolution is necessary for the Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, and I regret most of all taking up your time, by putting these points again. I hope that we understand your ruling absolutely clearly, because we would be doing you a disservice if we did not. Your ruling is that because of the general provisions made by the 1944 Act, there is a lesser need to be specific—I shall put it as generally as that—about the money implications in respect of education Bills which add to, amend or in any way change the 1944 Act.
You have said that there is no need for a money resolution. We accept that, believe it and entirely agree because you have said so, but the reference in the memorandum on the front of this Bill is not to the existence of the 1944 Act or to matters being in keeping with Mr. Speaker's ruling. The words are " no implications "—a very positive and assertive phrase.
We believe you, Mr. Speaker, of course, but the Government have not said what you have said. They have said that there are no implications, not that because of the 1944 Act the rules are different in respect of this Bill.
The importance of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) lies in the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) put down a new clause and it was ruled out because it had money implications. If it is the case that the 1944 Act covers for money purposes all subsequent Bills of this nature—I shall not even quarrel about section 11 of the 1976 Act and the money implications there—and it therefore covers the present proposed legislation, it surely must be the case that, inasmuch as the money resolution in respect of the 1944 Act applies, amendments or new clauses put down to Bills appearing subsequent to 1944 should be accepted, the money resolution question having been resolved by virtue of the 1944 Act, in pursuance of your ruling now.

Mr. Speaker: I am not dealing with other Bills. I am dealing with the present Bill, and I am not giving a ruling which applies to other Bills. My ruling in respect of this Bill is that no money resolution is necessary. I think that the time has now come—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must realise that I have been tolerant. These have been points of order on a Speaker's ruling. That course in itself is disorderly. It is not customary to challenge a ruling, especially when, as on this occasion, at the request of the House I have gone back to consider it further.

Mr. Foot: I made my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, precisely because I thought that it would have obviated the difficulties which you have indicated. It is a procedure often adopted in the House on other occasions. If Mr. Speaker makes a ruling, the House must acept it—certainly, we accept your ruling on this occasion—but there is also the consideration that the ruling given by Mr. Speaker may have implications for the rest of the debate.
That does not mean that the House is questioning Mr. Speaker's ruling in any sense, but it means that in the face of that ruling the House is entitled to review the situation and see how it affects the Bill. It was precisely for that reason


that I put to the Government a suggestion which would have set all these matters in order and which could have obviated the difficulty.
So far, the Government have refused to accept that suggestion. I ask them again. In order to avoid these difficulties, will they at least agree to the proposition made by my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), that they should agree not to proceed with Third Reading at this day's sitting, so that we may have a chance to review in a proper manner the ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given and see what are the implications in respect of the Bill before it leaves this House?
It seems to me that that is a most moderate request to make to the Government, and I ask them again to respond to it. I believe that they should have responded to the request to move to adjourn the debate now so that this discussion could more easily have been accommodated. However, I ask them again, in order to ease the situation, to give an undertaking that they will not proceed with Third Reading at this day's sitting. They will then be able to bring back the Bill on some future occasion, and we shall in those circumstances have a chance to consult my hon. Friends' constituents and other constituents involved.
I believe that that would be for the assistance of the whole House, so I urge the Government to accept that course. If the Government refuse and say that they will take no notice of what has arisen in these discussions, they will, I believe, be asking for difficulties in the conduct of the Bill.
I urge the Government to agree to what I have suggested. I have, I hope, put my request in the most courteous manner, and I asked them privately previously. I urge them now to take the very limited course we are asking for, namely, that they undertake not to proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill at this sitting.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that I can help the House if I suspend the sitting for a quarter of an hour, for the usual channels at least to talk, so that when we return it will be in order for me to call

the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to continue his speech.

6.25 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

6.40 p.m.

On resuming—

Mr. Foot: I ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement. We have had some conversations and I hope that he will respond to the request that the Government should not proceed with the Third Reading of the Bill during this sitting in the light of those discussions. It still leaves us with some other problems about the Bill because under the ruling that has been given—and we fully accept it—there is a question whether we have the right to table manuscript amendments. But that is a separate question. It would assist the House if the Government would at least agree not to proceed with the Third Reading during this sitting so that we shall have a chance to look at the situation that has arisen from the ruling and from its consequences.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We did have some conversations during the suspension of the sitting. Certainly it would be my wish to continue as proposed. In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which was quite clear in this regard, I cannot see that there is any reason for not proceeding with the Bill. On the point about manuscript amendments, that is for you, Mr. Speaker, not for me.

Mr. Foot: The matters we have put to you, Mr. Speaker, are not concerned with the acceptance of the ruling from the Chair. Of course we accept that. In some respects it fortifies the view that some of my hon. Friends have put on the matter. This a question of the convenience of the House in discussing these questions. Nobody who has heard the exchanges that have taken place today, and who has seen the position arise where Mr. Speaker suspends the sittings to enable us to have discussions, would believe that we should properly proceed with the Third Reading this evening.
I urge the Government afresh, in the interests of the House as a whole, to indicate that they will not proceed with the Third Reading in this sitting. This does not mean that they will lose something, it simply means that the House will have


the chance to look at the ruling and its consequences, and to consult those people who are involved up and down the country. The Government would show their strength rather than their weakness by agreeing to what we ask. They would show that they are prepared to bow to the desires of the Opposition so that the discussion can proceed in an orderly manner.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following from your ruling—which we all accept—that the Bill does not need a money resolution because it is covered by the 1944 Education Act, it became clear that an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was ruled out of order by the Table because it involved money. Now that we find that it would be in order because this Bill is covered by a money resolution, it follows that amendments and new clauses affecting expenditure could be tabled. It seems to me that you, Mr. Speaker, have an absolute responsibility to protect Members of this House and their rights. Their rights depend, to a substantial degree, on their ability to table amendments and new clauses during the passage of a Bill and on Report. That has obviously been denied to hon. Members because of the difficulties that have arisen from the advice that has been tendered on this Bill.
Therefore, in the discharge of the responsibility that you have to all Members of the House, and in order that we might have proper time to exercise our constitutional rights and duties in tabling amendments and new clauses to legislation proposed by the Executive, I say that we should have a suspension of proceedings so that hon. Members may discharge this function.
In the discharge of your solemn and onerous responsibilities to this House and in your duty to assist us in the discharge of our responsibilities to those who sent us here, Mr. Speaker, there should be a pause in the proceedings on this Bill so that we can consider and table suitable amendments dealing with the expenditure side of the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has repeated that point three times.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Before I conclude my point of order, in view of the conduct of Conservative Members who have indicated that I have taken a long time in putting this point of order, I should point out that there are serious issues involved. Some Tory Members—I do not include them all—may wish to subtract from the rights of this House to debate legislation but that would not be the overwhelming wish of the House. Nor would it be your duty, Mr. Speaker, to allow any attempt to deny hon. Members the right to put their points of order by comments made from a sedentary position.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those who were in the House earlier will know that at the request of the House I gave further consideration to the ruling. It is quite clear after long consideration that the money resolution is not necessary, and therefore it is in order for us to proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without any hint of sycophancy or flannelling, I stress that we are particularly conscious of the fact that you took three-quarters of an hour to consider these matters with your advisers before making your ruling. We are also aware of your attempt to facilitate a reasonable understanding on this matter by suspending the House so that conversations could take place. On the Opposition side of the House we are very grateful to you.
Earlier we asked that this debate should be adjourned so that we could conduct it in a way that meant that we were not in contention of any description with the Chair. Unfortunately, that was refused by the laxity of the Government. Because of that, the substance of your ruling is that in education Bills there is a " catch 22 " to end all " catch 22s ". The Bill says there are no financial implications. The Clerk at the Table and yourself regard amendments and rule, as indeed you must, on the basis of the Bill. In the course of your ruling you then recognise that while there are financial implications these are covered by an earlier statute. The Government's view is that there are no implications. The implications are covered by earlier statutes and " Erskine May " provides for putting the matter in a different form. This matter was also


covered by a special report of the Estimates Committee.
We are now facing an invidious situation. We wish to make our representations on a commonsense basis with an eye to justice in debating this Bill. We are not critical of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. There are two avenues open to the House. First, we can adjourn this debate in order to discuss any monetary implications. Second, we can conduct discussions on this subject before proceeding to Third Reading. These are ways in which the present difficulties can be resolved.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Naturally, I am anxious to help promote a reasonable resolution of these matters. Is it acceptable to the Opposition if the House now proceeds to discuss amendments at this stage and we hold a discussion on the financial implications? I suggest that we could have a full discussion to see what substance is contained in the supposed difficulties. That would be without prejudice to further progress on the Bill.

Mr. Foot: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. If I understand him aright, he is suggesting that while discussion proceeds on the Bill in the House, there should be some other parallel discussions outside the Chamber. That, surely, is not the normal way of proceeding. If there are to be other discussions outside this Chamber, they must have some bearing on the Bill. I have asked for an indication that we should not proceed with Third Reading until we have had an opportunity for such discussions to take place in the normal manner. However, it does not seem proper for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that, as well as public discussion in this Chamber, we should have private discussions.
The right hon. Gentleman is not being asked to surrender his virginity or something of that nature. He is being asked only that we should be given an interval between the end of Report stage and the beginning of Third Reading. That is a reasonable request for us to make.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood what I was saying. His request is that we should not proceed with Third

Reading. In the discussions which have taken place, my right hon. Friends and I have not been convinced that there is a point of substance involved. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] I am not saying that the Opposition are not convinced that they have a point of substance. I am saying that we have not been convinced. I am suggesting that we should proceed with these discussions and that the House should proceed with the Report stage of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman can convince us that there is a point of substance, we can consider the position with regard to Third Reading. That is a reasonable offer.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I wish to address you because it is my new clause 1 which is now being debated. The point arises immediately from your ruling and the substance of my clause. Paragraph (c) of the clause relates to
 The nature, range and extent of the courses and options offered in each of the selective secondary schools maintained by that local authority ".
In tabling my clause, I deliberately avoided including anything that would incur additional expenditure. If I had been able to do so, I would have added another paragraph requiring local authorities to maintain secondary modern schools to a particular standard of staffing and courses, which would have incurred additional expenditure.
It appears that arising from the position as it now stands, it would have been in order for me to table such an amendment if I had known that extra expenditure was covered by the 1944 Act. Alternatively, such a proposal would have been ruled out of order by the Table because the Bill contains no money resolution. I am not asking you, Mr. Speaker, to resolve the difficulty, but I put this point to the Leader of the House. This involves a dilemma which he should take into account.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Obviously points of order are not getting us any further on this subject. I have already given my ruling that a money resolution is not necessary, that the debate is entirely in order, and that it is in the best interests of the House to continue.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made an interesting point, but it impeded the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) from responding to my suggestion. I regard that suggestion as a reasonable way forward.

Mr. Foot: I have already given my response to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not very attracted by his proposal. He suggests that we should discuss in private some of the matters which would be naturally discussed as the Bill proceeded. Our proposal that we should not take the Third Reading in this sitting was not a radical one. It does not deal with the whole of our grievance. It still does not deal with the grievance as to how we should proceed on the rest of the Report stage.
We believe that our suggestion would ease the situation, and it would not mean the Government surrendering their position. We understand that they are still disputing what we regard as some of the difficulties which still arise. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to make a great concession. We are merely asking for an interval between Report stage and Third Reading so that we shall have an opportunity to consider the various views.
In the debate on Report, some of my hon. Friends will have to take up with the Chair the question of tabling manuscript amendments. That is their right. However, I still ask the right hon. Gentleman not to try to proceed with this Bill as proposed. It is not a matter of order, but relates to the convenience of the House. Let us consider what will be the convenience of the House if we try to get through the whole of this Bill in this sitting when there has been such contention on these matters.

Mr. Michael English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled. Do I take it that your ruling means that if there is a money resolution on any Bill, at any time if a subsequent Bill comes along that is within that money resolution, one can move—

Mr. Speaker: I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that I have already outlined the position. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present at the time.

I have ruled that a money resolution is not necessary on this Bill. My ruling is confined to that topic and therefore it is in order for us to proceed.

7 p.m.

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. However, I understand that your ruling is based on the fact that there is a money resolution to the principal Bill. As you are aware, the procedure began in 1660 and if I am right any money resolution in the last 319 years can be looked up and, so long as our amendments on any Bill are within them, we can move them.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a fresh, sharp and specific point which arises out of your ruling. It has not been dealt with and, with respect, it should be dealt with, either by your giving a ruling or in the course of the across-the-floor discussions. Great unfairness has been clone to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). He tabled an amendment which had a financial implication and he was told that the amendment was out of order because there were no financial implications in the Bill, as witnessed by the fact that there was no money resolution. After studying the matter with great care, you have informed us that there is a 30-year-old money resolution which becomes the money resolution for the Bill.
Therefore, it follows that the ground on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North was refused permission to table his amendment is invalid. Your ruling has made that ground invalid and it follows that he should have the opportunity to table that amendment again. One advantage of the adoption of the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) that Third Reading is not taken today would be that the Report stage would not be completed and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North could table his amendment again. Alternatively, if you were so minded, you could permit him to table it in manuscript. Unless facilities are provided by one means or another for the amendment to be tabled again my hon. Friend has been treated unfairly. Rules of order have been applied to him which you have told us are invalid.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was not present to hear your ruling, Mr. Speaker, because I was engaged in the parliamentary working party dealing with matters appertaining to the Bill, strangely enough. Subsequently, I heard of the ruling from some of my hon. Friends. However, I was present when other matters were raised. The House has several duties to perform, one of which is to be technically in order. Apparently, you are indicating that from your point of view the House is in order as far as the money resolution is concerned, because it is in the Education Act 1944. Nevertheless, another duty of the House is to convince the public that what it is doing is right. I have the impression that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is uncertain whether his course of action is right, and I am convinced about that because he has agreed to the parallel discussions taking place. If that is correct, the Front Bench channels are not operating correctly. It does not concern me whether the matter is ultra vires "Erskine May " or locus standi, or such other Latin phrases, but I am concerned that when the councillors who are involved in the Education Bill make decisions that will result in their being surcharged, they will say that on this day in the House of Commons, Members, particularly Conservative Members, caused that to take place. We, as a legislature, cannot carry the matter forward without being able to convince the judiciary or even the district auditor at the other end. I base my view on what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said. There is a great uncertainty, and because of that I believe that the business should be halted immediately.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I was present to hear your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and throughout the interesting discussions that took place earlier in the afternoon which led to that ruling being made. Of course, the House accepts your ruling, which was admirably clear and concise.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is putting forward a reasonable request and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is replying equally reasonably. My right hon. Friend would like to entertain that request if he could be convinced that there was a

substantial and identifiable point. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) intervened with his customary clarity and he identified that point as being the difficulty in which Labour Members may have been placed because amendments that they sought to table were rejected or ruled out of order on the basis of a different situation from that which now applies in the context of the money resolution.
That is not a matter for the House or for the Government, but it is a matter for the Speaker and the Table. It has to be decided whether the amendments are in order or not. I should be open to being convinced of the matter but the examples that have been suggested may well be matters that would be out of order—apart from the point about the money resolution—because they impose a charge on the Crown which cannot be made by a private Member. These are relevant considerations and only you, Mr. Speaker, and the learned Clerks at the Table can decide upon them. I do not believe that the House or the Government can usefully assist in the matter.
I suggest that, if they wish, hon. Members table their manuscript amendments for consideration by the learned Clerks at the Table in the light both of the position as established in regard to the money resolution and the basic principles about how far, if at all, private Members can propose amendments that incur a charge. We should proceed without prejudice and if the amendments are in order they will be taken. If they are not in order it is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and the Table. That seems to be a reasonable way to approach the matter—on a basis of good will and understanding on all sides.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The position is not as the right hon. and learned Memmer for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has outlined, because it is not without prejudice. The position is prejudiced by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I do not challenge that ruling in any way, but it has made the position regarding amendments completely different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whose new clause is being discussed, explained to the House that he had a different clause in mind but he was given certain instructions and parameters in the Table Office


within which to put down the clause. He was prevented from putting down the clause that he had in mind originally. Therefore, we should not continue the debate, although the matter is in your hands and in the hands of the usual channels. The debate should be halted. Your selection of items to be debated, Mr. Speaker, is also made on the basis of the relative tabling of the amendments. It may well be that if new amendments were put down for a fresh debate we should not be debating the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South may wish to withdraw the clause and substitute it with the original clause that he had in mind. That is a right of hon. Members.
It is with your ruling in mind and in order to strengthen and support it that I suggest that the best course would be to stop the debate now, because the matter has been in such confusion, and put the Bill down for debate next week or another convenient time, so that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South, for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who, I am sure, had in mind new clauses that were inhibited by the lack of a money resolution, could have the freedom that we have on any other Bill to put down clauses. The Clerks in the Table Office, who provide such a good service to the House, could advise on the shape and form of the proposed amendments.
That is the only way that the House can proceed if we are not to get into enormous confusion over manuscript amendments and the possibility that they may be challenged. I do not know whether you have in mind accepting such amendments, Mr. Speaker, but the difficulty with them, and the reason why the House rarely permits them, is that it is difficult to share them among hon. Members. We have a Vote Office from which hon. Members can obtain amendments, so that every hon. Member may be fully informed about amendments before the House. Without that facility we cannot enter properly and informatively into debates.
I strongly suggest that manuscript amendments are not particularly helpful and that strong preference should be given to ending the debate and allowing hon. Members to table amendments that can then be printed in the proper way, so

that all hon. Members are fully informed and can participate in the debate in the normal way.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I were in a council chamber I would have to declare an interest, because I am still a councillor, and that is relevant to my point of order.
The Bill states that it has no implications of a financial character or for public service manpower requirements and, according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it does not require a money resolution, though it will obviously cause expenditure to be incurred by local authorities.
I should like a categoric assurance from the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Education that it is proper for the Bill to proceed and that councillors will not be surcharged by district auditors if they implement the Bill and expenditure is incurred when there is no money resolution and the Bill is said to have no financial or public service manpower implications.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should tell the House that in the selection of amendments I bore in mind the fact that no money resolution was necessary for the Bill. I did that in my original opinion, which I have not changed.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that under no circumstances can an hon. Member who is not a member of the Government make a proposal or move an amendment that would involve increased Government expenditure?

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the precedents are properly examined, it will be seen that the situation that we face is exactly similar to the situation that existed on 10 May 1949, as a result of which Herbert Morrison made his statement and the long passage on page 756 of " Erskine May " was written.
I have already read the passage to the House, so I shall read only a part of it. The Government gave a undertaking in 1949, and when " Erskine May " quotes Government undertakings the implication is that they are constitutional points that


apply to future Governments. " Erskine May says:
 where a public bill put any substantial duty on local authorities, the financial resolution necessary to cover the resulting increase in equalisation grant under the Local Government Act 1948 would be drafted in wide terms in order not to prevent Members from moving amendments which might increase the charge on the rates. This undertaking may be presumed to hold good for the present system of rate support grants which has superseded the system of equalisation grants.
7.15 p.m.
In 1949, the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill, which was introduced without a money resolution, was at first said by the Government to be ineligible for a money resolution and, therefore, for any amendments that attracted Government expenditure. The original ground for that view was that the Bill was covered—in exactly the same way as you, Mr. Speaker, say that the Bill before us is covered by the Education Act 1944—by the Local Government Act 1948, which had a money resolution.
Mr. Herbert Morrison said at that time that even when a Bill was covered by another Bill, a money resolution should be put down, not to put the matter in order but so that hon. Members who wanted to do their constitutional duty and table amendments should be able to do so.
The Leader of the House tells us that he is not convinced by our arguments. I accept that, and no doubt the aguments will continue. However, in printing the Bill the Government have said that they are not following constitutional precedent. The Leader of the House has suggested that there ought to be private discussions about the matter. That is all very well for the Front Benches, but not for Back Benchers, who have seen the Bill rushed at breakneck speed through Committee in a mere three sittings simply because all amendments that involved money were ruled out of order.
We now have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill was, in the first place, covered by the money resolution to the 1944 Act. Had we known that on Second Reading, or before the Committee stage, there is no way that the Bill could have gone through so quickly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have misinterpreted the

ruling, which I thought was quite clear, that the 1944 Act authorised expenditure and required a financial resolution. Every money resolution begins with the words:
 for the purposes of any Act of the present Session ".
Although the 1944 Act authorises the expenditure, which makes a money resolution unnecessary for the Bill before us, its money resolution cannot be extended to cover amendments to Bills in this Session.

Mr. James Callaghan: Further to the points of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may say something that I think is uncontentious, it is 7.18 pm. That will be agreed by both sides of the House. We are not making much progress. I am sure that the Leader of the House has that fact very much in mind when he looks at the long list of amendments—a total of 22 in five separate groups.
There is an important debate due to start at 11 o'clock in the morning and it is therefore important that there should be agreement between both sides of the House about the way in which we handle the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has suggested how we can ensure that the debate starts properly at 11 o'clock in the morning. If there is no agreement, we shall find ourselves in a difficult and awkward situation.
The Leader of the House has been here for a long time. He knows that when the Opposition get into a certain state of mind progress that would otherwise be made reasonably quickly can be rather more slow.
I want to make a suggestion to my hon. Friends. I always like to be reasonable on these matters. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and the Leader of the House leave the Chamber for a short time to have a discussion, and that in the meantime we allow the debate on the new clause to continue. When my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman return with the result of their discussion by, say, 7.30 pm or 7.35 pm, and we see whether the Leader of the House has been convinced, it will be possible for us to determine how we wish to proceed, in continuing to make the progress that we intend to make


on the Bill during the remainder of the night.
I suggest that there should be a quiet discussion between the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend and that we let the proceedings continue for the next 15 minutes.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am delighted to hear that, but I thought that it was what I had suggested. However, let us not quarrel about who suggested it first. Let us proceed accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to continue his speech on the new clause.

Mr. Christopher Price: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
May I say in preface to the continuation of my speech that the sort of discussions that are to go on through the usual channels in the next 10 minutes or so underline the point that I was trying to make about the rights of Back Benchers? Something—I do not know what—will be cobbled up in those discussions along the corridors Those of us who have spent a long time trying to put down amendments, but who have not been allowed to do so, will be excluded from the magic circle that is to discuss these matters.
The only thing that gives me any pleasure is that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), will also be excluded. If he feels like going down the corridor and joining my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and the Leader of the House, let him feel free, as my remarks will take a little time. Indeed, it is not impossible that they will last until 7.35 p.m., when my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman are to return and we may resume our discussions on the principle of the matter.
I think that for the next few minutes I can make the sorts of points that I might have made on a point of order in speaking about new clause 8. It says:
 Those local authorities to whom sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Education Act applied in whole or in part "—
that is, those that have gone completely comprehensive under the 1976 Act, those that are going comprehensive under that Act and those that might think of revoking under that Act—

" shall submit to the Secretary of State by 1st January 1980 proposals for the proportions in which children shall be allocated to secondary schools of different types over the next 10 years.
I suppose that the preparation of those submissions will cost a bit of money. I suppose that the learned Clerk allowed the new clause to be tabled on the ground that such expenditure was not very significant. But it is my view—certainly it was my view before the Committee stage and before Report—that I should like to table a stronger amendment. That would make it absolutely clear that local authorities intending to do something as substantial as stopping the engines and putting them in reverse, creating a whole sea change in the direction of public policy as it has been over the past 30 years since the Second World War, should not be able to do so, as the Bill permits, in a hole-in-the-corner fashion over a period of a few weeks, in the way that Tameside did. They should do so under proper local authority planning procedures. That necessarily would have involved spending a certain amount of money. I was not allowed to put down such an amendment, and that is the only reason why my clause is in its present form.
I do not know whether as a result of the magic circle discussion behind your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will transpire that, although I was allowed only to put down new clause 8, I could have tabled a much stronger amendment. This all goes to strengthen my point that, whatever the Government may say, and whatever may happen as a result of the magic circle talks, the whole Bill is now irretrievably vitiated. There is no way in which it can properly pass through the House.
The rushed Committee stage was designed to avoid doing any of the things that we are talking about in the new clauses. Every stage of the Bill's progress so far has been rushed for one reason only. It is that pledges were given during the election by the Chief Whip, who is now colluding behind your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I withdraw the word " colluding ", and substitute the phrase " engaged in important discussions ", which we all hope will result in a sensible resolution of the difficulties in


which we find ourselves. The usual channels have often brought that about in the past.
We are in the present difficulty partly because the Government wanted a Bill that they could rush through. They knew that they could not rush it through if they had a money resolution. We had to have our rushed Committee sittings because of the Chief Whip, whose grammar school at Brampton is involved; and of the Home Secretary, whose grammar schools at Brampton is involved; and because the Secretary of State made an abortive attempt to win the two seats in Bolton for the Conservative Party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made some speeches there, but both his visit and that of the Prime Minister signally failed to have any effect on the electors of Bolton.
Having failed to have any effect on the electors of Bolton, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have tried to rush through a Bill of this kind without a money resolution, in a few fag-end weeks before the summer holidays, simply to avoid political embarrassment, and because of promises that they made, which it would be a scandal for the country to allow them to fulfil.
I suspect that there is another reason why there was an attempt to rush the Bill through and why there is no money resolution—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be speaking to new clause 8. I hope that he will get down to it. I understand that the arrangement is that there will be a report later on the discussions that are taking place. The hon. Gentleman is entering into arguments that tire not concerned with the clause.

Mr. Price: New clause 8, like the rest of the new clauses that we are discussing, lays down what we consider to be the proper local government procedures to be followed before there is a change in local authority policy as substantial as the Bill proposes.
7.30 p.m.
I am trying, simply in context, to set the scene for saying why these new clauses should be passed and to state the motives of Conservative Members who are trying

to argue that they should not be passed. Conservative Members want to rush through these clauses for political reasons. There is no money resolution because the Treasury would not allow one to be put down. The Treasury is not allowing any money resolutions because it is attempting to cut public expenditure. I shall not pursue that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because if I did so, I am sure that you would call me to order.
Long consultations, often over a period of seven to 10 years, took place before local education authorities decided to go comprehensive. Those discussions have involved parents' organisations, the Confederation for the Advancement of State Education, teachers' organisations and local authorities. Sometimes, the authorities have taken back their plans to be modified before continuing further consultations. All that consultation started with circular 10/65 at the time when I had the honour to be Mr. Anthony Crosland's Parliamentary Private Secretary. I remember the initiation, as does my then joint Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who was then the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
When one considers these extensive consultations, the idea that the Government should say that 10 years' carefully prepared plans should be torn up during a few weeks of August, simply to save the political face of the Chief Whip, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, because he made a few promises in Bolton—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In recent minutes, we have been joined by a few Conservative Members. But for most of the debate on the new clause, as opposed to the procedural points, there has been a singular lack of interest on the Conservative Benches. Yet this Bill is supposed to be demanded by Tory areas of the country.

Mr. Price: That is not only the phenomenon that we see now. We saw that phenomenon, as my hon. Friend will recall, throughout the Committee stage. We were graced by the presence on the Committee of the ex-chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities education committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton), who probably knows more about local


education authority mechanics than anyone in the House.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was during the last general election. In my by-election in Ilford, North and in the general election, education was a burning issue with many electors.

Mr. Price: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making my point. I have been to Ilford town hall in the past to make speeches about education. I agree that among my audience in Redbridge education was a matter of burning interest. I hope that the Redbridge council comes to its senses one day and gets rid of the 11-plus examination. It does not appear, looking at the Conservative Benches, that education is a burning issue in the Conservative Party today. Nor did it look so during the Committee stage of this Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Would my hon. Friend say how many amendments were put down in Committee by Government supporters? Would he also say how many amendments the Conservatives have put down on Report?

Mr. Price: The House does not need even my wisdown to acquaint itself of the answer to that question. In case some hon. Members would like the answer, it is nil plus nil. Some of the new Conservative Members made one or two interventions before they were carefully taken out of the room to receive a good talking-to from the Whip, the hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who is on the Treasury Bench and smiles at the idea. They were told to shut up. After a while, we were even deprived of the sedentary interventions from Conservative Members during the Committee stage.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members in Cheshire are demanding that the moves to comprehensive education already in operation should be thrown out against the wishes of the Conservative controlled education committee?

Mr. Price: There were some discussions on this matter. I am afraid that I have done Conservative Members a severe injustice in my remarks. I will-

ingly put the record straight. There was one Conservative Member whom the Whip was unable to restrain—the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who allowed himself three or four interventions. We learned after a time that the mere mention of the word " Cheshire ", or particularly mention of Mr. John Tomlinson, that dedicated educationist and chief education officer for Cheshire, drew the hon. Member for Macclesfield, as if by levitation, to his feet. The hon. Gentleman would give us a little lecture on how every county councillor in Cheshire except three or four who represent Macclesfield, was wrong.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have already drawn attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman was making slow progress in getting to the clause under discussion. It appears that we are still waiting to hear the arguments he intends to put forward.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not outside the normal traditions, practices and good behaviour of the House for an hon. Member who has not been here all day to pop in and rebuke Members who have sat through every part of the debate?

Mr. Brown: I might point out that I have been here for the bulk of the debate [Hon. Members: " Absolute nonsense."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will address himself to new clause 8.

Mr. Price: I have no objection to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) interjecting in the way he did. He shows a touching loyalty to the hon. Member for Macclesfield, whose research assistant he was during the previous Parliament. If we could all rely on our research assistants to that extent, I am sure that we would all be well served.
If local education authorities take advantage of this Bill without the proper protection which we believe this selection of new clauses gives them, and if they rush ahead during the month of


August, months, sometimes years, of careful preparation will be torn up. We will have absolute chaos of the kind we saw in Tameside a couple of years ago.
My name is attached to new clause 8, although I will be talking about the other new clauses that have been selected. New clause 8, if I may paraphrase, says that before local education authorities are allowed to revoke and go back to grammar schools and secondary modern schools, they must tell the parents and the teachers in their authority what a grammar school and what a secondary modern school are to be. They must give them some idea of the proportions that will be selected for each school.
In all our big cities, local authorities are inhibited in their powers to close schools. Even if they start in the first year selecting perhaps 15 per cent. for their grammar schools and 85 per cent. for secondary modern schools, the natural fall in population will produce a 5 per cent. shift per year—perhaps more in some inner city areas. It is impossible to close a grammar school and well-nigh impossible to close a secondary modern school. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) will remember the attempts to close Bow school, which was not exactly the most popular school in the country. The present Prime Minister, when Secretary of State, faced with the desire of ILEA to rationalise secondary education in the East End, gave in, perhaps properly, to the parents and refused permission. So the numbers dropped further and further.
Unless LEAs fulfil the requirements of the new clause, it is not just that 15 per cent. will go to grammar schools and 85 per cent. to secondary modern schools—that may have some spurious psychological justification, although I do not agree with it—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend says that many people favour some selection. Has he found one person who would recommend the precise percentages? Despite all the pressure, the Tories have not given the percentages. It always seems to be simply a question of expediency.

Mr. Price: I agree. The only inkling that we have had was a speech on Second

Reading by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), whom I am sorry not to see in his place, because he takes these matters seriously. I fear that it is because he took seriously his loyalty to proper continuity and common sense in education that he is on the Back Benches and has not been given the job he deserves of looking after education as he did from 1970 to 1974. It is a pity that the Tory Party has gone so reactionary and so far right as to penalise the decent folk in its ranks. Nothing illustrates that point better than what has happened to the hon. Member.
I asked the hon. Member on Second Reading what percentages of selection he thought were tolerable—not proper, but tolerable. He said that in a new town such as Wokingham it would be acceptable to those who sent their youngsters to secondary moderns or comprehensives if 10 per cent. were selected, but certainly no more. That was a social judgment, not an educational one.

Mr. Mikardo: A PR judgment.

Mr. Price: Exactly—that the parents would just about tolerate their school being called comprehensive, even if it was not, if the numbers taken away were limited to 10 per cent.
In our inner cities, even though to begin with 10 or 15 per cent. will be selected, the drop in population and the inability to close schools means that in the second year 20 per cent. will be taken for grammar schools, where everybody wants his child to go, and in the fifth or sixth year, 50 per cent. will be selected—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) wish to intervene? He appears to be getting excited.

7.45 p.m

Mr. Barry Porter: I was voicing my disagreement. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is a fixed and determinable percentage. One of the reasons for the Bill is to leave it to local authorities to determine their own percentages. The percentage may be 10 in Wokingham, but my experience of running an LEA has taught me that, although I would think in terms of 10 to 15 per cent., there is nothing fixed about that proportion. He is also quite incorrect to say that


everybody wants his child to go to a grammar school. In my experience, that is utter nonsense.

Mr. Price: I am interested in those remarks, since the hon. Member used to be chairman of the Wirral education committee, although his views did not always coincide with those of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston, I am told.
Although the Bill leaves it to LEAs to decide, the inability to close schools and falling rolls mean that demographic factors fix the percentages. Unless the LEA is armed with great new powers or frames its policy with great care, it will not be possible to prevent 50 per cent. from being selected for each type of education.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) described the aim of the Bill as the devolution of powers to local authorities. Would my hon. Friend care to contrast that statement with the subject of housing, where the Government intend to introduce swingeing powers of dictatorial central government, forcing local authorities to do things which their local knowledge would lead them to reject? That is a strange antithesis, is it not?

Mr. Price: Every time this Tory hypocrisy is raised, I find the answers unconvincing—although I was once convinced strongly on this matter. A number of houses in my constituency are owned by the City of London. Its housing manager begged me to use my influence with the Tory Party to allow the City to keep its powers to prevent council houses being sold, because the City believed that that would wreck its beautiful estates in my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman relate that matter to new clause 8?

Mr. Price: I was improperly tempted, but this is relevant, because the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port, the former chairman of the Wirral education committee, implied that my new clause was unnecessary because the Bill allowed local authorities freedom, and that this was a deep belief of members of the Conservative Party, which they had put forward at the election. They have

no deep belief of that sort and it is hypocrisy for them to say that they have. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), astute as always to the nub of the legislation before the House, has observed that the Conservative Party is completely hypocritical on this ground.
No psychologist, no educationist and no expert on earth would even attempt to justify a situation in which 50 per cent. of pupils within a local education authority area attended selective schools and 50 per cent. secondary modern schools. No one has ever suggested that that creates anything other than dustbin schools for those who do not attend selective schools.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that in the table to which I referred earlier, Buckinghamshire has 19 per cent. of secondary pupils in comprehensive schools, 50 per cent. in moderns and 30 per cent. in grammar schools. However, there are no apologists from Buckinghamshire in the Chamber.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: I am by no means an apologist from Buckinghamshire. I am proud of the results and standards that the Buckinghamshire authority has achieved in all its schools.

Mr. Price: I briefly respond to the intervention upon an intervention. If the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) seriously wants to—

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. I recall that at about 7.20 p.m. the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the shadow Leader of the House, left the Chamber with strict instructions to return at 7.35 p.m. to tell us the result of their deliberations. Am I in order in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Serjeant at Arms to go and find them?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in order, but it is unlikely that I shall respond.

Mr. Price: I am not in favour of your sending for the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker, as I am in the early stages of my speech. I should like to complete the first paragraph before I am interrupted for the


second time. These are weighty and important matters.
Are there local education authorities which want to act as crazily as Bolton, Cumbria and North Yorkshire? I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) is in the Chamber. The local education authority within his constituency is seriously intending to submit section 13 proposals and to turn an established comprehensive school—I think that the school is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: No, it is not.

Mr. Price: If it is not, It is probably in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that this very evening my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has gone to attend a mass public meeting of parents to protest against the proposal to which he has referred?

Mr. Price: I am sure that our loss is the parents' gain. We are always sad to have to conduct our debates without the benefit of the presence of my hon. Friend. I do not know how he has managed to get away from this place with a three-line Whip running.
The education authority in my hon. Friend's constituency is seriously proposing that, on the issuing of a section 13 notice, it should allow an established comprehensive school to revert to a grammar school and a secondary modern school.
If the Government are serious and accept that the comprehensive system, which has been built up slowly within the structure of the 1944 Act over the past 20 or 30 years, is to be smashed In that way on the whim and caprice of Tory majorities on local education authorities, which may not last for more than a year or two—these Conservative-controlled authorities come and go—and if they are saying that the patient work, sometimes continuing over generations, to build up comprehensive systems is to be torn down, at least some safeguards should be written into the Bill.
My hon. Friends and I say that the new clauses provide some safeguards to prevent devastation and irresponsibility taking place. We say that there should be proper planning procedures. The 1944 Act provided that every local education authority should produce a development plan. During the 1950s and 1960s many authorities changed what were originally tripartite development plans into comprehensive development plans. That is how we have the present comprehensive system. There were extensive consultations.
The Government are saying that that planning background should be torn up and that no proper planning procedures should take its place. We accept that the Government won a majority. We accept that they have a right to introduce a Bill of this sort. However, given the tradition of education legislation, they should insist on providing planning procedures for decomprehensivisation as procedures were introduced for comprehensivisation. That is what new clause 8 attempts to provide. It attempts to make local education authorities provide the necessary procedures before they start tearing things up and reverting to square one.
In Committee we heard repeatedly from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Brent, North that the Government wanted to put the clock back. I wish that the whole House had been able to hear the hon. Gentleman utter those words. The Government want to put the clock back to 1976. That is a call that should go loud and clear to the outside world. My hon. Friends and I say that the clock cannot be turned back as the Government wish because the mechanisms of school systems are so extremely delicate. They involve youngsters' futures, parental preference and many other areas of concern. To put the clock back as the Government wish would be a piece of vandalism that the House and the country should not tolerate.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government talk about having mandates they have no mandate to wreck people's lives?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is addressing the House and not his hon. Friend


the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).

Mr. Cryer: I am trying to address both you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend. As I cannot pirouette very well, I am trying to do my best in all the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: In that case I take precedence.

8 pm

Mr. Cryer: In that case I shall address my remarks entirely to yourself, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for reminding me of this task.
On some occasions the Conservatives claim that they have a mandate. My hon. Friend said that the clauses dealt with planning. No political party has a mandate to wreck people's lives. I should like my hon. Friend to comment on that. If a change is to be made it must be done in such a way that people fully understand what is going on. These clauses will achieve that end. My hon. Friend and I claim that if people get to know what is going on they will oppose it.

Mr. Price: As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is helpful.
Having dealt with new clause 8, I was about to refer to new clause 1. I referred to the local education authority planning procedures that new clause 8 involves. What my hon. Friend said was relevant. The planning procedures of the local education authority are to a large extent above the heads of the ordinary people, who are interested in the material contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Those paragraphs set out the proposed changes, what the allocation procedures will be and the pressure to be put upon their children if allocations are to be reintroduced by a local education authority. If a child does not obtain a grammar school place at the first attempt, what will the transfer procedures be? Will transfer be a reality, as the Government say, or a complete dead letter, as is so often the case with many local education authorities?
Thirdly, parents are keen to know
 The nature, range and extent of the courses and options offered.
Parents are not too concerned about the label put on the school. They are interested in the reality inside the school,

whether their youngsters will be able to learn three sciences or a general science course up to the age of 16, what foreign languages will be taught and whether foreign languages will have disappeared for pupils under the age of 16.
The burden of the Government's remarks—the reason why the Government resist the new clause—is that throughout the whole of the 1976 Act proceedings and the 1979 Education Bill, which never became an Act, they prated on and on daily about parental consultation. Under the Bill they will not allow parental consultation of any kind. In Committee we asked the Under-Secretary of State what would be his attitude towards parental consultation. He said:
 The answer is no—a straightforward two-letter word."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 July 1979; c. 73.]

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of new clause 1, under which consultation is not required. Local authorities are required only to provide information. I hope that what he said about the Government was not correct. I trust that they will agree to the new clause. If they do not agree to it they will be withholding information. That will be contrary to Government policy.
Mr. Price: I completely agree. I was trying to make that point.
New clause 1 is fairly narrow. It is concerned with information, for reasons which I shall not rehearse. The point is that without information consultation is meaningless. Before they consult local education authorities parents must know what is the situation. The Government say that the Bill should go forward without the new clauses and without parents knowing anything about the basis of allocation. A new 11-plus examination will be introduced but there will be no information about transfers and courses available.
If the people of Bexley, Cumbria and Bolton read the report of the Committee proceedings they would have realised that a complete volte-face had taken place among Government supporters in their attitude towards parents and that they had become the new tyranny of the majority, about which Lord Hailsham speaks.

Mr. Cryer: Not any more.

Mr. Price: According to " Erskine May " I must be respectful in my references to Members of the other place. That is how Lord Hailsham spoke when he wished to become Lord Chancellor. Now that he is Lord Chancellor he does not speak of those matters.
The Conservatives have thrown overboard all attempts to provide ordinary information not only on educational matters but also on school uniforms and transfers. The electorate must know that if they are to form a correct view of the Government.
Government supporters say that local authorities should have their way. For instance, Bolton is now a Conservative-controlled local authority. The Bolton electorate wants to make a judgment of the Government before next year's elections so that it may make its opinion known in no uncertain terms. From the proceedings so far on the Bill, and the obvious, clear, naked intention of the Government to rush it through, the electorate of Bolton will have received a good idea of the motives behind it. It wants to know to what conditions its 11-year-olds will be subjected if Bolton is allowed to move away from comprehensive education under this Bill.
It is pleasant to see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have returned. I am sorry if your presence augurs the arrival of unexpected guests elsewhere.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is likely to be some time before the guests return. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that into account.

Mr. Price: I shall certainly take that into account. I had thought that certain proceedings were imminent. I find, as a result of a note kindly passed to me, that they are less imminent than it seemed at one stage.

Mr. Cryer: We should not stray too far from the mainstream of the debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that failure to carry these clauses might rank as a deliberate cover-up by local Tory-controlled education authorities, aimed at preventing people knowing precisely what is to happen before the next local authority elections? In view of the Government's devious plan to wreck comprehen-

sive education, which many Tory local education authorities have in mind, Labour will sweep the board next May. What we are seeking is an extension of information to enable the democratic processes to take place. Would my hon. Friend agree with that?

Mr. Price: As always, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Some of us spent much of the Session before the general election in fighting for freedom of information. The response from the Conservatives at that time was that they absolutely believed in freedom of information. Indeed, the National Association for Freedom used to write to us and say that it also believed in freedom of information. It was about the only thing that we had in common. Yet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we are discussing the very first Bill to be published by the Government, we find that they are resisting amendments which would allow parents and teachers—the people who have an absolute right to this sort of information—to find out what is going on. They are denying people the right to make a proper judgment at the next election on whether they want the Tories to be in charge of local education or whether they would rather switch to a more sensible governing body locally.

Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend might like to know that Cheshire county council has already given effect to an even worse refinement regarding lack of information. For a very considerable time, at very great cost to the taxpayer, it has been sending a tiny number of children to independent schools. It is now suggesting that it will cut back the amount of money given to ordinary State schools in order, presumably, to maintain this highly privileged class. He might also like to know that this is done on a basis which is not at all clear. The selection procedures are in no way open to any kind of consideration. What is more, they are viewed with something less than absolute happiness by the parents of the children who do not get into this magic circle.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Price: I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield is not here. so that we might hear his version of the position in Cheshire. My advice to my hon. Friend is that she should get one of


her constituents to complain about the procedure and to send the complaint to the local Ombudsman. In some cases, where no information is given, the council is acting quite contrary to public policy. The local Ombudsman, Baroness Serota, in her most recent report, has made quite clear that if local authorities are to operate systems, they must be open systems.
I have not been able to proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the sort of dispatch with which I had hoped to proceed, because my hon. Friends, quite properly, have felt the need to make several interjections. In concluding my remarks, may I express the hope that my hon. Friends will press each of the new clauses to a Division, because these new clauses at least hold out a guarantee that parents would get some sort of information? We know that there are local education authorities which have decided to rat on comprehensive education, for purely political reasons, sometimes born of the encouragement they received during the election campaign from the present Secretary of State for Education. They have decided to rat on pledges which have been in existence for years.

Mr. Cryer: Would my hon. Friend agree that in these concluding moments of his speech he is endeavouring to sustain the argument which many of us mounted very bitterly, during the last moments of the previous Administration, concerning freedom of information? Would he further agree that if the new clauses were to be added to the Bill they would provide some momentum in relation to freedom of information in local authorities, and that in turn would help to influence local government?

Mr. Price: I quite agree with that excellent summary of my peroration. I am quite sure that several of my hon. Friends will be seeking to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it be today or tomorrow. Obviously, the debate will continue for a little time. [Interruption.] If some of the sedentary interjectors on the Conservative Benches wish to make speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt they will also be seeking to catch your eye so that they can make their points.
I was seeking to make the point that the new clauses would provide some pro-

tection for parents and teachers. What the Tories intend, by shoving the Bill through in a few weeks—by pretty dubious constitutional means, as we have seen earlier today—is not only to reverse the whole trend of education since the war and not only to tamper with our constitution but to deprive the very electors who put them in power of the sort of information that they need to counter the effects of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether my hon. Friend would care to explain in a little more detail his views on the question of transfer.

Mr. Price: I have never in my life, Mr. Deputy Speaker, found such great difficulty in concluding a speech. Whenever I get near to the end of it, I find that I am tempted to deal with certain aspects of the new clauses with which I have not yet dealt adequately, it would appear. I never could resist temptation. My hon. Friend asks me to say something about the question of transfer. What proposals do local education authorities such as Cumbria, Bolton and North Yorkshire have to ensure that there will he adequate transfer facilities where youngsters find that there are no suitable courses for them at secondary modern schools and they need to transfer to a grammar school?
No one who has read the literature of the history of the 11-plus since 1944 can escape the fact that, although in 1944 local education authorities set out with excellent motives for constant review—as mentioned in new clause 3—of switching youngsters from one school to another where a mistake had been made, the machinery never operated, or operated with only one or two youngsters a year in the whole city. That machinery never operated because there were queues of candidates for transfer from secondary modern to grammar school, but an absence of applicants for transfer from grammar school to secondary modern school.
In effect the transfer system never worked at all. Certainly in the city of Sheffield, where I spent a period as deputy chairman of the education committee in the 1960s, although we had all kinds of formal arrangements for transfer, before we went comprehensive, they never


worked. Therefore, I believe that the clause about transfer, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is an absolutely essential prerequisite, guaranteeing that before local education authorities are allowed to implement the provisions of the Bill they will tell parents what arrangements are being made.

Miss Sheila Wright: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) recollect the comments that were made in the constituency he once represented in Birmingham? I clearly recollect that when the 11-plus was fully in operation In Birmingham, without any consultation with parents, 4 per cent. of the child population from the ward of Kingstanding went to grammar schools whereas in the neighbouring area of Handsworth Wood the figure was about 66 per cent.
Is my hon. Friend also aware that in an area where we have been completely comprehensive since 1975, a proposal has apparently been put forward through the press by the present council—with any luck it will not be Tory-controlled next year—that, should this Bill go through, a comprehensive school in the far north of the city will once more become a girls' grammar school? The council does not intend. apparently, to consult anyone, either parents or teachers. If this takes place it will mean youngesters having to travel 14 miles or more.

Mr. Price: May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Miss Wright) to our education debate? She follows a long line of hon. Members representing Birmingham, Handsworth who are distinguished educationists. We all remember, with warmth, her predecessor, Lord Boyle, who was so rudely pushed out of the education world by the Conservative Party which replaced him with the present Prime Minister. That was the beginning of the real problems we now have with the breaking up of the comprehensive system.
I certainly remember my brief tenure as the Member for Perry Barr. Birmingham in those days selected an average of 32 per cent., for grammar school education, if one averages out the whole city. But that concealed a figure in Hands-

worth Wood of about 66 per cent. There were virtually no children from the Kingstanding estate in Birmingham which is now so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who was secretary of the constituency Labour Party when I was Member of Parliament for that constituency.
I have made three attempts to conclude my speech and I shall make one more. What we are saying in these new clauses is that parents need to be told of the proportions between grammar and secondary modern schools and the arrangements for transfer. They also need to be told the curricula being taught in grammar schools as compared with those in secondary modern schools, and the arrangements for transfer at later stages between grammar and secondary modern school so that mistakes that have been made can be rectified.
The Government are saying that not one such piece of information can be written into this legislation so that parents know of the situation. That completely exposes their pretensions to be on the side of parents, and completely exposes their pretensions to be in favour of a parents' charter. I do not know how they will have the face, as they say they will, later to bring in a parents' charter. It is because I feel that parents and teachers need this sort of protection that I urge the acceptance of new clause 8 and lend my support to every other new clause in this group. Indeed, I support all the amendments that we shall come to later. I very much hope that before the end of the debate the Government will see the light and make up their mind to accept these new clauses.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: We are discussing five new clauses, and I should like to deal with them in turn. For the benefit of some of the younger Conservative Members, perhaps I ought to put forward briefly my credentials for making this speech, although they will be well known to most of my colleagues. I taught in a secondary modern school, under the selective system, for 13 years. I was a member of an education committee for 10 years. I was a PPS to the Secretary of State for Education and have, therefore, seen education from the Ministry side. At one time I even had the advantage of


being a member of the Education Committee of the European Parliament, and have seen education from that point of view as well.
I want to deal with this matter not as a politician but as someone who has had a reasonable amount of practical experience. I hope very much that the Government will accept new clause 1. It is a vital clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, it is a clause that asks for information. It asks that information be given to parents, teachers and everyone else inside the community. Paragraph (a) of the new clause begins with the words
 the nature, basis and criteria used in any process of allocation of pupils to selective secondary schools ".
I am not absolutely certain what the mover of the new clause means by " nature " and " basis ". Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will enlighten me as to what is meant by those words. I know what is meant by " criteria ". It is important that everyone should know the criteria that are used in the selective process.
I taught in a secondary modern school, and even as a teacher in that school I was never fully aware of the criteria used by Hampshire education authority in its selection procedure. We had many long discussions in the staff room, trying to ascertain what procedure was being adopted, because it seemed to vary from year to year. One year we would find that quite a number of the brightest children from the surrounding primary schools would be selected to go to the local grammar school, but in another year we would find that equally bright children were for some reason not selected to go. They came to us. In many ways we welcomed this, because as a teacher in secondary modern schools one likes to have a percentage of intelligent children.
One of the interesting factors about the whole selective system was its inaccuracy. On results, I would have backed my top stream in the secondary modern school any day—they all failed the 11-plus examination—against the bottom stream in the grammar school. Indeed, we used to compare tables, although the grammar schools did not like it very much.
For many of those 13 years I was responsible for the O-level stream in the secondary modern in which I taught. We had children who achieved eight or nine O-level passes and anything ranging down from that. If one of our children did not achieve at least three or four O-levels we thought that we had been doing rather badly.
8.30 p.m.
That shows how inaccurate the whole selection process was. If these children had gone to a secondary modern school in another county where there were no O-level courses they would never have achieved any results at all. I am proud to say that some of my children—those that I taught—went on to the grammar school and eventually went to university, and at least one had a first-class honours degree. I am proud of that, because I think that it was partly our work at the secondary modern school that started that progress.
We were fortunate in the sense that Hampshire had O-level courses in all its secondary modern schools. If the child who got a first-class degree had gone to a secondary modern school in Cornwall, where there were no O-level courses, he would never have gone to university, let alone achieve a first-class honours degree. His opportunity would have been finished. He would have been a goat in the division into sheep and goats at the age of 11 and he would have stayed in that category.
It is terribly important that parents and teachers should know the type of system being operated and, especially, that the teachers should know what criteria are used for the selection process.
I turn now to paragraph (b)
 the arrangements made for transfer of pupil from one category of selective schools to another and the number of pupils so transferring".
It should be public knowledge how easy or difficult it is, inside the selective system that is being adopted, for children to transfer from one school to another when it is obvious that mistakes have been made. It is not quite so difficult for a child attending a secondary modern school to be transferred to a grammar school, although that depends very often on the availability of places, but I can assure the House that it is very difficult


to do the transfer the other way. When a child has been selected for grammar school education and it becomes obvious that he is not capable there, it is difficult to persuade his parents that he should be transferred from the grammar school to a secondary modern school. I knew a number of children who were in an environment in which they should not have been, in a selective high-powered grammar school, and were unable to keep up with the work. The children themselves suffered.
This is another trouble with the whole selective system. One tries to divide children into academic and non-academic streams. At one time we had three categories—academic, technical and nonacademic—and that was a bit of a farce. I remember talking to the woodwork master on my staff, who argued very strongly that it was obvious to him that, on the whole, there was a correlation between the academic child and those who were best in practical subjects. It was rare that a child who was not very good academically shone in a technical subject. It was a rarity rather than the normal rule.
It is difficult to transfer children from one school to another. Under the old selective system selection took place at the age of 11 and a child could be transferred at the age of 13. That provision was put in to iron out any mistakes that might have been made at the age of 11. However, as I said earlier, that did not work very well. The other transfer age was at 16, and that again produced a great many difficulties.
I was in charge of the fifth-year classes at my school—the O-level classes—and we had children who achieved four, five, six, seven or eight O-levels. Such children should transfer from the secondary modern to the sixth form in the local grammar school and continue their academic course, but it is difficult to persuade them to do that. They have been in the informal atmosphere of the secondary modern schools and at the top level as prefects or monitors. They are the top boys and girls in that school.
The local grammar school to which I refer was good but insisted on school uniforms, and that sort of thing, and it

was difficult to get pupils to transfer. Many young people who should have gone from the secondary modern to the grammar school did not wish to move into that atmosphere. It was easier after their O-levels to get them to transfer to the local technical college to take their A-levels. There were difficulties, because the technical college was in Southampton and the schools were in Hampshire, and at that time the two districts were not united. I rather wish that we had that system now and that Southampton had retained its powers over education.

Mr. Flannery: I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, because I was a teacher—and a head teacher. I wonder. however, whether the truths that he is telling us are being appreciated by Conservative Members. The Benches opposite are almost empty. The Government have so-called elective dictatorship and are not bothered about the Bill. They want to rush it through.

Mr. Mitchell: That is absolutely true. One hon. Gentleman is sitting there because he has to. I used to be in that position, to pass messages down to my colleague on the Front Bench. I was disappointed that younger Members left as I was about to ask them how many of their children went to secondary modern schools. There are about 360 Conservative Members and I doubt whether there are half a dozen whose children go to secondary modern schools. That is my point. A wealthier person whose child fails the 11-plus and is not selected has a choice. There is private education. That choice, unfortunately, was not open to 85 per cent. of the people in my school's catchment area. We did not have many rich parents, and they had no choice. They were fortunate that devoted people like myself were teaching at the school and therefore they had an opportunity that might not have existed in other circumstances.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does it occur to my hon. Friend that not only do Conservative Members not have their children educated in the State system, but neither were they? The result is plain to see. They think that the Bill is so unimportant that they do not bother even to listen to the debate on the new clause.

Mr. Mitchell: My attitude is not quite so sweeping as that of my hon. Friend. Although there are not many Conservative Members who went to State schools, I know of one for certain, because he went to a local secondary modern school in my town. I regret that he is not present.
It is difficult to get children to move, at the age of 16, from a secondary modern to a grammar school, because they are moving to a more formal atmosphere. In the end many children go to technical colleges to take their A-levels because there is a more informal atmosphere there—they are treated as adults.
All these problems are avoided with the comprehensive system. There are not the same stresses and strains in such a system. My argument for comprehensive education has never been based on class grounds. I was educated in an old-fashioned, small grammar school, which was fairly classless. My argument is based on purely educational grounds because I believe it is very important for children of varying educational abilities to be taught in the same environment, although not necessarily in the same classroom. In this respect I may disagree with some of my hon. Friends because I believe that a certain degree of streaming is necessary. Mixed ability classes cannot be the general rule, because it takes a very good teacher to cope with them, and we do not necessarily have enough good teachers. I shall probably upset my union by saying that, but I believe that it takes an exceptional teacher to handle a mixed ability class satisfactorily.
As I said, I went to a small grammar school and mixed only with children of my own ability. At the age of 18 I was called up for service in the Army. I shared a double bunk with a boy, and after a few weeks he asked me to read a letter from his girl friend. I told him that I did not want to read his letter, but he explained to me that he could not read properly. Thus I discovered to my horror, at the age of 18, that there were young people in my age group who were unable to read properly, and who were embarrassed by that fact. What worried me most was that at 18 I had not realised that such things happened. That was because I had mixed only with children of my own ability. That fact, more than

anything else, made me a fervent advocate of the comprehensive system of education.
I am not necessarily an advocate of the all-through comprehensive system with very large schools. I am much more an advocate of comprehensive-type education with open access secondary colleges. However, if I get too involved with that I may be out of order.
Paragraph (c) of the new clause covers the nature, range and extent of courses offered in each of the selective secondary schools, and so on. Once again, this is fundamental. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South had been able to include his fourth paragraph. Unfortunately, he was debarred from doing so. For 13 years I taught in a secondary modern school and was one of only two graduate teachers on a staff of 22. Being a graduate gives one a slightly wider range, as witnessed by the fact that I have, at various times, taught nine different subjects to O-level—English language, English literature, history, geography, physics, chemistry, biology, rural science and economics. In the secondary modern school there was often only one specialist teacher. Mathematics was another of my subjects. I was head of the department. I had forgotten that one. I do not understand modern mathematics—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before the hon. Gentleman continues, will he tell me to which of the clauses he is speaking? I have only just come into the Chair, I have been listening carefully, but I cannot relate his remarks to the clauses.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: It is new clause 1, paragraph (c), which deals with the staffing allocation of schools,
 together with a schedule of capitation or other financial allocation and staffing quotas to each type of selective school maintained by that authority.
I was seeking to underline the importance of having a proper staffing allocation in a secondary modern school under a selective system. I was drawing on my experience and emphasising that the reason why I taught a large number of subjects to O-level was that there were so few specialist teachers. If one specialist teacher is away, there is no other specialist to take his or her place.
That does not happen under a comprehensive system because more specialist teachers deal with a wider range of subjects. Therefore, one teacher can step into the shoes of another. I was often the person who had to substitute for a colleague.
It is important that parents should be aware—this is dealt with in paragraph (c) of the clause—of the schedule of capitation, the financial allocation and staffing quotas. Often there is a wide divergence. In the selective system there was a difference in the allocation of capitation fees for library facilities, games and staffing quotas between the grammar school and the secondary modern. The allocation for the secondary modern was about 1: 25, if we were lucky.
The new clause seeks to ensure that parents have the necessary information on which to make a judgment. The theory of parental choice is nonsense. The only people who had a choice under the selective system were those who had children selected for grammar school, having passed the 11-plus. Those parents could choose whether that child attended the grammar school. However, the parent of the child who was not selected for the grammar school had no choice whatever. It was no good the parent saying I do not want my son to go to school A. I want him to go instead to the grammar school." Nobody took any notice of such a request. There was no real parental choice.
However, the system in a comprehensive school is different because there is a wider range of courses. There is also a streaming system. A child can be in one stream in English and in a separate stream for maths.
I move on to new clause 3. I have dealt partly with the point about the ease of transfer from secondary modern to grammar schools. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is making is that if there is to be an effective transfer system there must be a regular review of education standards. If there is to be an 11-plus system with transfer at 12, there must be an assesssment of that child at 12. It should not only be the assessment of the secondary modern school teacher, saying that the child is misplaced; the head-

master of the grammar school should be involved in the matter. Otherwise secondary modern schools may try to pull a fast one and transfer many children. Transfer is not as easy as it sounds. There was often divergence of opinion between the heads of the secondary modern and grammar schools about the merits or demerits of particular pupils.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that traditionally many secondary modern school teachers felt that the grammar school wanted to transfer children to the secondary modern not on the ground of ability but on the ground of behaviour?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. I can remember a number of occasions when I suspected but was not able to prove that the grammar schools were using the transfer system as a convenient way to get rid of awkward children. A classic case was of a parent who objected to his child's wearing school uniform. I do not support that point of view because I believe in school uniform, but the grammar school had a rigid system of school uniform. That child, irrespective of his academic ability, was transferred to my school because his parent refused to send him to school in uniform. Nevertheless, I was pleased to receive him because he was a bright lad.
It is important that the local education authorities can assure the Secretary of State that there is an adequate system of continual review of education standards to enable easy transfer. That is imperative if we are to return to the selective system.
To turn to new clause 5, I emphasise that it is important when education authorities allocate their resources, books, library facilities and so on, that they should not discriminate between grammar and secondary modern schools. Many education authorities believe that because secondary modern schools contain children of lesser academic abilities, fewer books are needed. The reverse may well be true. If the academic standard is to be improved, that may require more books.
The question of the late developer is always difficult. There was a study carried out that correlated the ability of children at the age of 11 and the number of books in their home background. I


have visited many homes where there were no books. In the homes that had 'books the child had a distinct advantage because of his familiarity with books. In many cases the secondary modern school needed a larger allocation of books than did the grammar school. The same is true of library facilities and other materials and resources.
One can usually tell which used to be the old grammar schools because they have large playing fields attached to them. The secondary modern schools sometimes had an asphalt playground, but children often had to go to a common, perhaps several miles away, for their sports. If we are to have this ridiculous selective system, it is vital that there should be positive discrimination—to use an expression first coined by Edward Short when he was Secretary of State for Education—in favour of secondary modern schools in the provision of sporting and other equipment. All too often, the reverse was true.
I should like to see the selective system abolished. It is an anachronism and a horrible thing. I spent 13 years teaching in that system, and I was pleased when my town got rid of it. As a member of the Southampton education committee I played a small part in that.
If we are to return to that system, it is vital that there should be communication between grammar and secondary modern schools and, as new clause 6 suggests, regular consultation on the organisation of schools, curricula, examination courses and so on. If there is to be ease of transfer, there must be correlation of examination courses. It is difficult to transfer a child from a secondary modern school if the local grammar school is working towards examinations of a different board. There must be co-ordination and that is why I strongly support new clause 6, which calls for proposals to be put before the Secretary of State to ensure that there is consultation between grammar and secondary modern schools on a number of subjects so that transfer between schools is as easy as possible.
I have little to say about new clause 8, because the matter was dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, to whom I listened with great interest. Here again, it is vital

that we have long-term planning and involvement.
The new clause asks for details of the proportions in which children will be allocated to secondary schools of different types in the next 10 years. It may not be possible to do that because the science of demography is so uncertain that projections are often hopelessly inaccurate. I am sure that all hon. Members have found that in their local schools. There must be consistency of percentage transfer if there is to be a selective system.

9 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I agree that planning primary schools over a 10-year period is very difficult. We know for the first five years how many youngsters have been born, but we do not know for the next five. However, in planning a secondary system we are at least in possession of the basic facts about how many youngsters have been born in a local education authority area, and therefore how many will apply for secondary school places in 11 years' time. That is why l0 years was selected as the period given in the clause.

Mr. Mitchell: I understand that. My hon. Friend is right. There can be much more certainty in planning for secondary schools, though there cannot be absolute certainty because there can be a transient population. For example, there are areas in which old people lived 10 years ago but which have now been transformed into environments with large numbers of children. That is true of a number of London boroughs.
In my own area we have had a substantial increase in the immigrant population over the past few years. In one area there has been a considerable growth in the child population, which was perhaps not predictable 10 years ago. However, I accept that the 10-year period is reasonable when we are allocating for secondary schools.
When parents are deciding where to buy their homes, they should have an indication of the education prospects, not only immediately but in five or 10 years' time. People do not want to keep moving all the time. One normally expects to be resident in an area for a number of years whilst one's children grow up. If I buy a house in Southampton or move to another area, I should have some idea


of what the education position will be in 10 years' time.
This is a very bad Bill. It represents a step backwards. I hope that the Minister will accept all the new clauses and that the whole House will support them. All that we can do in them is to make a bad Bill slightly better.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I was one of the members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. It was the first time I had served on a Standing Committee, and I found it quite an educational experience. I had expected at least the Government's spokesmen would make their case and deal with the subject with respect, explaining themselves and justifying the changes that they were making. It became clear—it was even conceded by the Under-Secretary—that the Government were trying to turn back the clock. It is a case of two steps forward and one step back. That is what is called progress.
We spent seven-and-a-half hours in Committee on a short Bill. I was amazed by its lack of content and the Government's lack of conviction when my hon. Friends were presenting their case and justifiably challenging the provisions of the Bill. It may be that we must get used to this. Perhaps later tonight the Under-Secretary will expound the Government's theories and convince the House of the wisdom behind the Bill, the justification for it and the morality of the changes.
My own city of Manchester got rid of these old-fashioned, archaic, elitist ideas that still seem to prevail among some hon. Members. It gives me great comfort to know the benefits that children derived from the change. The change was not made recently. It was made in 1967.
Comprehensive education is not cheap. It is expensive. When one seeks to provide equal opportunity for all children, one should go into the matter with one's eyes open. It was denied in Committee that the issue was a matter of cost, but it is noticeable how different are the provisions provided in various authorities.
The new clause poses the question about the nature, basis and criteria used in any process of allocation of pupils to selective secondary schools. The crunch comes when we examine the tripartite

system to which the Conservatives are trying to revert. Many 11-plus failures pride themselves in saying that they were failures but got through. Whether they should have been induced to suffer this indignity is another question. Even the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), took great delight in reminding me in Committee that he was an 11-plus failure. I do not know whether that is anything of which he should be proud.
We know that this system which the Conservatives desperately want to retain is divisive. We know that there is a complete loss of potential and loss of talent which causes great misery and frustration. I recall speaking to the father of a young girl in one of the backward authorities which still retained the 11-plus examination. His daughter had three friends. Of the four girls, three passed and one failed under the system. The father told me that he never wanted to experience again a situation where one heart-broken child was left out, feeling unwanted, frustrated and neglected. This is what happens under the system of the one-day 11-plus. What is the 11-plus? It is a diagnostic test of one day's performance whether the child is feeling ill or fit, bright or under the weather. On that day, the child's future will be decided. If a child from a wealthy family fails the 11-plus, the parents can often compensate and can even pay for private education. But that does not apply to working class children. That is the dishonesty of the 11-plus.
Before my election, I was chairman of the education committee in Manchester. Neither my party nor the Conservative Party there would dare to reintroduce the monstrosity of the 11-plus. However, Manchester is surrounded by some backward authorities, some of them real cavemen. Last Saturday, a lady who is a teacher came to my home very upset about a young relative of hers who lives in Trafford, where the 11-plus is used. She said that the child was a so-called borderline case and an 11-plus failure.
Trafford's educational provision is a dog's dinner—some get a good education and some do not. She showed me some correspondence and asked for advice, but there was little that I could do, since I have no influence outside Manchester. The mother of the boy had appealed to


Trafford and the chief education officer wrote back in the usual verbiage in the following terms:
 Appeals Sub-Committee.
Your appeal against the assessement for secondary education of Christopher has now been considered by the Appeals Sub-Committee of the Education Committee. The decision of the Appeals Sub-Committee is:
' That the original assessment remain unchanged.' I realise that this decision may he disappointing to you, but in reaching it the Appeals Sub-Committee gave full consideration to the case which you presented and to other information available. Should you feel that the decision of the Authority is not reasonable, you have the right to approach the Secretary of State for Education and Science, Department of Education and Science, Elizabeth House. York Road, London ".
There are two other long paragraphs.
There is a sequel. The lady who approached me, who teaches in my area, took the boy who had failed the 11-plus for an intelligence test. The assessment by the professional educational psychologist shows why the parents are aggrieved and angry. It says:
 On the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, Christopher achieved a verbal scale score of 135, which is in the superior range of ability. This scale is a good predictor of school success, and Christopher achieved this result effortlessly.
The report continues:
 On the Wechsler performance scale, Christopher achieved a score of 115. This is, of course, above average.
9.15 p.m.
I read another excerpt, which states:
 Christopher would benefit from a grammar school education. His reasoning ability, vocabulary, general knowledge, reading and mathematics are all comfortably within the grammar school range.
That is the psychologist's assessment, yet the Trafford authority said that he was an 11-plus failure.
On the next page of the assessment there is a summary of the WIS test for children. It reads:
 Verbal Scale I.Q.: 135, superior.
Performance Scale I.Q.: 115, above-average.
Full Scale 1.Q.: 128, well above-average.
Sub-tests:
(mean = 10 s.d. = 2)
Information (general knowledge): 15, well above average.
Arithmetic: 16, well above average.
Similarities (verbal reasoning): 17, superior.
Vocabulary: 14, above average.
Picture completion: 14, above average.
Picture arrangement: 11, average.
Block design: 11, average.

Coding (eye-hand co-ordination): 13, above average.
Reading: Fluent.
On the Burt test, a recognition of 90 words gives the ceiling age of 12 years.
Christopher read 106 (maximum 110) words easily.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). I am listening carefully to what he is saying. will he pleae relate his remark to new clause 1 or on of the other new clauses that are bracketed with it?

Mr. Eastham: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to address myself to new clause 1, especially to paragraph (a). My hon. Friends and I are seeking to have included in the Bill some clear definition of
 the nature, basis and criteria used in any process of allocation of pupils to selective secondary schools ".
Christopher, the subject of the psychologist's report, has been refused admission to a grammar school and has been termed a failure under the 11-plus system. We know about that one case, but how many thousands of other children will suffer in the same way and will never receive any opportunities?
We are entitled to some answers. Never mind about putting us off, waffling through, watching the clock and thinking about Division results. Let us have some specific answers. Throughout the Bill's passage in Committee we received no answers.
I am proud to say that in Manchester we decided that parents should be entitled to read and to know what teachers were writing about their children. We decided that they should be able to ascertain the assessments that were made and that they were entitled to know whether anything improper was contained in the records—for example whether there was something relating to the family and not to the specific child. If parents want to contest a decision of the education authority, they are entitled to do so.
In Manchester, the education authority is the big spender. We have never said that education comes on the cheap. Some of the backwoodsmen and cavemen authorities want to continue the old systems. They can hardly swank about being big spenders for all the children.


They may spend freely for 20 per cent. of the children whose parents push and ensure that their children receive a good education. However, they do not spend freely for the other 80 per cent. The financial estimates within the education reports from the backwoodsmen reveal that they are extremely poor spenders.
We are, justifiably, greatly suspicious of the Bill. It is not in the interests of sound education. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I think of the time spent in Committee and on this evening's debate, which so far has lasted for nearly four hours. However, not one Government supporter has put the case for the Bill. We are entitled to answers. Perhaps we shall have to be satisfied with answers from the Under-Secretary of State. We might have expected, in view of their conviction, great fervour and enthusiasm for the Bill among Government supporters, to hear from many advocates of the Bill. However, to their everlasting shame, after nearly four hours of continuous debate, there has not been one speaker from the Government Benches. I hope that before the end of the debate we shall hear some sound educational justification for the Bill.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I am grateful for the chance to speak on this most important Bill, and especially on new clause 1(a), which refers to
 the nature, basis and criteria used in any process of allocation of pupils to selective secondary schools ".
The Opposition are not surprised at the nature of the Bill. It is completely consistent with Government policies in other areas. In education they propose what amounts to a wholesale return to a two-class system, just as in other respects they advocate and endorse a two-class system.
One of the surprising aspects of the Government proposal in the Bill is the degree and scale of its backwardness. For example, in a previous debate on economic policy I criticised Government policy on the basis that in many respects it failed to equal even the social intervention in the economy that was achieved by Bismarck. In this case I wonder whether the Government are trying to reverse not only the principle of equality but the principle of equality of opportunity.
In practice, the principle of selection—division into two classes in schools—has been rejected by virtually every progressive education authority in the developed countries.
Implicitly the Government case relates to the assumption reflected by Sir Cyril Burt and others on the testing of intelligence, as if such testing were in a genuine sense scientific at a particular age. One of the Sunday newspapers recently published a devastating summary of something that for all of us—not only the Opposition—has already become part of conventional wisdom—that such testing has no scientific basis, in a genuine sense, at or around the age of 11.
It is exceptional that Burt's findings, which entered into the conventional wisdom of educational philosophy in this country for several decades, have been so explicitly repudiated. He invented research assistants who could corroborate his case. When he found that his theories did not fit the facts—similarly to Professor Milton Friedman, in terms of economics—he twisted the facts to fit his theories.
It is surprising that despite the devastating repudiation of Burt and all he stands for the Government Front Bench are prepared to reintroduce selectivity into education rather than admit that the comprehensive principle—difficult though it may well be in practice—is the only one on which to achieve equality of opportunity. That equality of opportunity is a hallmark not simply of Socialism or social democracy but even of those principles of a career open to talent which, in most of Western Europe, were established in 1789—the period of enlightenment, of the marshal's baton potentially being available in everybody's knapsack.

Mr. Flannery: I was most interested in my hon. Friend's anecdote about Sir Cyril Burt, who at one stage had the whole of education plunged into fantasies about intelligence. Does my hon. Friend remember the great indeavours to define intelligence? First, we all said that it was inborn all-round mental capacity. Then we discarded that definition. Then the world of education alighted on a definition of intelligence. It was decided that it was that quality which was tested by intelligence tests. That was the definition at which we finally arrived from


Sir Cyril Burt. That was his tremendous contribution.

Mr. Holland: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intelligent comment on intelligence tests. An interesting implicit point in these tests, however, and the way in which they have been challenged—not simply on the basis of Sir Cyril Burt's fraud. but on other grounds—is that much of the testing which can be easily quantified is what is technically known as the testing of convergent thinking. We can test people on the multiplication tables and arithmetic in such a way as to give an precise score. It can be said with some accuracy that a child has achieved 65, 85 or 95 marks out of 100. What cannot be tested is creative thinking or the development potential of children over the long term.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) for interrupting him in his peroration. I am pleased to tell the House that the talks that I have had with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) have had an amiable outcome, which I believe will be in the best interests of the House. We shall not proceed to the Third Reading of the Education Bill tonight, but the Government will take that at an early stage. In view of that, and the representations that have been made to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about the rearrangement of Monday's business, I shall be making a revised Business Statement, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, in the House tomorrow. I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale for their courtesy and co-operation.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) for interrupting his brief speech. I thank the Leader of the House for the arrangements that he has announced. I am sure that the decision that he has advised the House to take is the right one. I believe that it can assist our business generally. We shall look forward with interest to his statement tomorrow morning about future business, which can also assist the House. I am most grateful to him for the consideration that he has given to the representa-

tions we made. I believe that it will assist our discussion on Report and on Third Reading, which will be taken later.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sure that the House is most grateful to my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the House, but did they discuss or make any agreement about what will happen to those amendments which were ruled out of order on grounds which you, Mr. Speaker, made clear from your ruling were invalid?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. When I selected the amendments I did so in the knowledge that a money resolution was not necessary. What was out of order is still out of order.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House is pleased that the Government and the Opposition Front Bench have come to what seems to be an arrangement that is convenient to the House. However, an important constitutional point has arisen this evening about amendments and money resolutions. Could I make a plea through you, Mr. Speaker, for the Procedure Committee to look at this whole area, so that we know what is the constitutional position and a proper statement can be made to the House in due course?

Mr. Holland: I am indebted to several right hon. and hon. Members for clarifying the situation.
I was laying emphasis on a distinction—which may well appear unclear to several hon. Members on the Government Benches—between convergent and divergent thinking. [Interruption.] I understand that for some of those who have not had the privilege of failing the 11-plus because, at a certain stage in their lives, they were fortunate enough to fall upon the lower rung of the topmost escalator in our society—in other words, going from prep school to public schools—may find such a distinction difficult to grasp. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is not being fair to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot hear him from the Chair.

Mr. Holland: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) for distracting me from the point that was made.
The distinction is a very important one. I should like to give two examples, one trivial and one serious. They interrelate and are directly relevant to the question whether one should select children at a particular age for two different types of education. First, I give the serious example. It is perhaps not very well known that Einstein was a very late developer. It may well be known to some hon. Members, but not too well known to others. Einstein's performance in algebra and mathematics at an early age was rather poor. In a practical sense one can see the relevance of this to the question of selection.
From personal experience I know of a child at school who, when told that the multiplication of plus numbers made a plus asked why the multiplication of minus numbers did not make a minus. That child did not get an adequate answer from the master concerned, despite the fact that the school was allegedly of some quality, and he failed the arithmetic test.
If we look at that child's question closely and examine the fact that when one multiplies what amounts to one non-orange by another non-orange one does not get an orange, even though the arithmetic says that if one multiplies one minus number by another minus number one should get a plus—which is the kind of question raised by Russell, Whitehead and others in Principia Mathematica "—we find that it is the kind of creative question which many children are intimidated from asking, because the main preoccupation in an education system based on testing, with the guillotine of an examination of the character of the 11-plus over their heads, is not to extend learning but to pass examinations.
One of the most devastating aspects of the kind of retrogressive policy that would be introduced into education by the Bill is this intimidation of children which extends from school through the home. There will be a climate of pressure on children in the home by parents who must weigh on them the seriousness not of learning, creativity or standing back and thinking about one part of their education rather than another, but of passing these wretched examinations—these excessively high hurdles—at an

excessively early age. If they do not do so, under this kind of Conservative reactionary education philosophy they will be branded for the rest of their lives as second-class citizens. That is why I strongly support the new clause.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I want to speak briefly to the new clauses that we are now discussing, but first I should like to state the purpose of the Bill. It is against the purpose of the Bill that we Conservatives must decide upon the acceptance or non-acceptance of the new clauses.
The purpose of the Bill is perfectly simple. It is to return to local authorities the right to run their secondary schools in the way they want. One hon. Member referred to putting the clock back. This Bill returns the situation to what it was in 1976, when, if areas wanted to go comprehensive, they could do so, and it was up to them how that was achieved.
It is against that background that the decision must be made regarding these new clauses. I have sympathy with the intention behind many of the new clauses. I listened to the speeches of the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) with considerable interest. These new clauses control the way that selection can be carried out, where a bipartite system continues. They control how transfers can be made from one school to another. The authority must lay down how it is making transfers, and that must he reported to the Secretary of State. To an extent, again by reporting to the Secretary of State, they also control the curriculum in both the secondary modern school and the grammar school. The local authority must also lay down almost a rigid proportion of children going to grammar schools every year, irrespective of changed circumstances. They also control the capitation allowance—the amount that can be spent on the various schools.

Mr. Spearing: I interrupt now because I think that it may save time later. The hon. Gentleman is referring to " they ". Although it may well be that the other new clauses have the effects which he described, does he not agree that new clause 1 does not control anything but


simply requires information to be made public?

Dr. Boyson: I was coming to that point last, because presumably that will be the key to this Bill and the next Education Bill. I have considerable sympathy in regard to the question of making information public. In many cases, I am in close agreement with the views of the hon. Gentleman, who understands the schools situation and has himself been a schoolmaster.
On capitation, Conservative Members agree that children of the same age should receive the same amount of help, whatever school they are in. The hon. Member for Stockport, North, who is not with us at the moment, talked of the advantage of having a sixth form because it incorporated a library. I accept that fact, but where there is a division between a secondary modern school and a grammar school, it will be a good thing to ensure, by guidance and indication, that the same facilities are given to the children, irrespective of whichever school they go to. I shall not use the word " progressive ", because it has dangerous connotations, but most enlightened authorities these days do follow that practice. However, I believe that it would be far too rigid to lay down in a letter to the Secretary of State the percentage of children to be selected over a 10-year period. It would not allow for changes in circumstances, and that is something which we could not accept.
I shall take the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South as the link between our Education Bill No. 1 and our Education Bill No. 2, which will come out later this year. We believe in the maximum information being available. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who read the debates on the Education Bill which fell this year when the Government fell will see that we pressed time and again for maximum information to be provided, whatever schools children attended.
We do not disagree with the Opposition on that point, but it should apply to all schools, not just to those in areas which remain selective, where there are grammar and secondary modern schools. After all, the question of knowledge of the curriculum applies not just in respect of those transferring from secondary gram-

mar school to a secondary modern school but in the other direction.
Vast numbers of people move with their children still at school, and they should know what the position is. There should be a core curriculum so that when they move from one area to another they may know that their children can take up the courses which they have been doing and continue without serious disadvantage.

Mr. Kinnock: Is there not a problem for the Minister, as one of the promoters of the Bill, in sustaining that argument in that, by the retention of the selective system in certain areas, which the hon. Gentleman is encouraging by the introduction of his Bill, the establishment and maintenance of a core curriculum or the guarantee to parents that they can move from one area to another and have a reasonable chance of their children going to a school of similar standard, structure and type, with a similar curriculum, is substantially reduced?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point because it allows me to clear the matter up both for his sake and for ours. A core curriculum will apply whether it be a secondary comprehensive, a secondary modern or a secondary grammar school. That is the basic minimum which is done by all children attending those schools. If they go to a grammar school, most children there will be taking one or two languages in addition and they will probably go further in physics and other subjects as well.
If they go to a comprehensive school which is doing its job, the brighter children there, who in other areas would have been in grammar school, should similarly be doing two extra languages, higher physics and so on. I see no difficulty if that comprehensive school is working to academic standards with academic children. If it is not doing that, it is betraying the opportunities of those children. I think here, for example, of a child transferring from a grammar school in Trafford to a comprehensive school in, say, Oxfordshire and fitting into the curriculum there.
There are many more children transferring in that way than there are transferring from secondary modern schools


to grammar schools, which is really the only small point covered in these new clauses. The same applies where a transfer occurs within the same area. I believe that the question of the core curriculum is important so that parents may know and have a guarantee that a basic minimum is covered. It is not a problem just in respect of a few transfers. I accept from hon. Members who have spoken from the Opposition Benches today that in many cases there are only a few transfers between grammar and secondary modern schools, and that more should occur where a selective system exists. The biggest transfer occurs when parents move from one education authority area to another. They then find difficulty in knowing whether their children can carry on.
We have taken on board what has been said today. I have noted with interest that the House is now moving towards the core curriculum. It would not have happened five years ago. At least, one can see a movement towards some form of consensus there, if not on other matters.

Miss Wright: I wish to pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). How will the Minister meet the situation of a child undertaking an academic course in an area where there is comprehensive education, where there is no 11-plus course and who then moves to another area which has grammar schools and secondary modern schools where the normal procedure is always that a child who has not taken an 11-plus examination elsewhere does not have the opportunity to go to a grammar school?

Dr. Boyson: If the hon. Lady has evidence of that, I hope that she will give it to me. Frequently when a child moves into a selective area, he is seen by the headmaster of the school in that area and put into the correct level. There may possibly be areas where academic children in comprehensive schools have not been sufficiently stretched to make that possible. It is worrying if that is happening in the Birmingham area. If there are bright children moving from comprehensive to selective areas and not being given an opportunity to enter a grammar school, I should like evidence of that.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister is developing the argument that it is not important to worry about transfer from secondary modern to grammar schools. The much greater problem is the transfer around the country. On the Labour Benches we should have liked to take up that problem in Committee but were told that it was not in order. Surely the Minister must agree that there must be action on the narrow point that we are entitled to deal with in the Bill.

Dr. Boyson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back. I always appreciate his comments. We rejected the amendments in Committee because they had nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill simply gives back freedom to local authorities to run their secondary schools as they want. The other material will be covered later in the second Education Bill. We have moved the Bill speedily because many local authorities wanted a return to freedom.

Mr. Cryer: I wish that the Minister would not keep coming out with this nonsense about giving local authorities freedom. He is simply exposing Tory doctrinaire policies and giving opportunities to Tory local authorities to apply their policies. He knows full well that to be consistent the same freedom should apply across the board—and that includes council housing.

Dr. Boyson: It is not the first time and probably not the last that we shall hear that. The Bill passes power back from the Government to local authorities to decide how they run their schools. Under the doctrinaire policy of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), the Government would decide how all schools should be run. The Bill is the first step in passing authority back to parents. It will pass it first to the local authorities.
We have gone further on council housing and it obviously worries the hon. Gentleman. He keeps bringing the matter up like King Charles's head. With council housing we are moving freedom back to individuals, from local authorities. So that the hon. Member for Keighley may sleep well this evening, if we are able to sleep this evening—and it will not worry us if we do not—let me tell him that our next Bill will restore parental choice. It will return individual


choice, as with council housing. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has again given me the opportunity to delineate our views on that matter.
We believe in bright lights in dark corners. Information should be freely available—and that includes academic results. That apparently horrifies Labour Members, unless they have changed their minds. We want maximum information for parents. They should be able to see from the prospectus how schools are run. They should know of the forms of discipline, the way that staff are recruited, the sports available and the academic results. We have no desire for secrecy. I hope that in the second Committee there will be considerable agreement. Earlier speeches by Labour Members possibly indicated that.
I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends reject the amendments. I hope that they will be withdrawn now that we have promised the great debates on the next Bill.
We should hurriedly move on and get the Bill on to the statute book. We are determined on that. It was our pledge in the election, it is expected of us and we shall do so as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the Minister. It is rare to have such a classic example of a brass neck standing at the brass-bound Box. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not put forward one educational argument. He has rather let the cat out of the bag. In effect he said that the Government were not interested in the educational argument. They are concerned with a doctrinaire policy that was put forward in the election and all that they are doing is making a gesture that may damage the educational opportunities of many children. They are not concerned because this move will protect their interests. I hope that the House will accept all the new clauses. They are a very sincere attempt to alleviate some of the damage done by this tatty little Bill.
In Cheshire we see a great deal of the damage clone by a Conservative education authority. New clause 1 deals with the nature, basis and criteria used in any process of selection in secondary schools. I trust that also would include the selection procedures being used in Cheshire to maintain a number of places at inde-

pendent schools at considerable cost to the taxpayers. That money will be taken away from the existing State system.
The Secretary of State for Education should be ashamed to be part of a system that puts forward that kind of ploy. He should at least try to show us why he is turning down the new clause. In my constituency we are only now getting the movement towards comprehensive education which would do away with artificial barriers. The Cheshire county council has evolved a system of catchment areas and of allocation of funds to very old buildings which makes the comprehensive system virtually impossible to operate. In my constituency there is one so-called new " comprehensive " school which is working in a five-site building. This is unfair on both the children and the teaching staff. If Conservative Members had any interest at all in State education and if they sent their children to State schools, they would know that it is virtually impossible for a child to receive a decent education while he or she is moving between five different sites.
When Ministers talk about giving freedom back to local authorities they should tell us how they can justify paying taxpayers' money for supposedly transforming old, substandard buildings and claiming that this will lead to an effective comprehensive scheme. Indeed, there are so many doubts in Cheshire that even the Conservative-controlled education authority now refuses to listen to the blandishments of some Conservative Members who speak very loudly for the 12 per cent. of children who are educated in grammar schools, but never for the 58 per cent. who are educated in secondary modern schools.
The Secretary of State should give us some of the arguments for that kind of selective procedure. After all, new clause 1 does not ask for very much. If we are to have this arbitrary selection, this programming for the lower echelons of economic life, there should be some small outlet for those children who are thought to be inferior and suitable only for secondary modern education.
This Bill is not concerned with educational standards, improving the number of graduates or providing new buildings. It is concerned with dividing children.


The Conservatives talk about freedom, but the kind of freedom they mean is the freedom to divide one child from another into preconceived categories like a number of factory-bred animals.
The majority of Conservatives went to that form of comprehensive school which is lightly called a public school and therefore they are not aware of the things that go on in the State system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Perhaps the hon Lady will relate her arguments to one or other of the new clauses.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall be delighted to do so. Unlike some Government Members, I have been sitting here for many hours to do precisely that.
I was educated in the State system, as were my children. One of my children had the honour of being taught by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in a large comprehensive school. I believe that the House should not turn down this tiny attempt to look after the interests of those children.
If we are to have some idea of the nature, range and extent of courses and options offered in each of the selective secondary modern schools, I trust that capitation costs and fees per head will be equalised. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he will use methods of persuasion. Unless sufficient Government money is provided it will be difficult for education authorities to keep up with existing costs. It is obvious that there will be a division of moneys between one kind of selective school and another. In a game of that kind it will inevitably be the secondary modern school that will suffer.
There are other important points in the clauses. We are asking for clearer access to school records. The Minister said that he had always wanted that facility. Many notes are taken that affect decisions about a child's future. It is important to know the person who provided the brief on the child. A parent faced with a decision about his child's future must know what the teachers concerned with that child decide to record in private. I am referring not to the views expressed when teachers call on

parents but to the records kept of the child, his ability and his general future in the education system.
One returns to the point that as soon as one has a selective system some children will be put in a category that is regarded as non-academic. Conservative Members will then loudly denounce the modern educational system. They will not take the view that the child of 11 will know that he is a failure. In present circumstances are we to return to the argument about the child who passes or fails the 11-plus? That is the reality behind the Bill. No Government spokesman has said that the Government intend to make special funds available to enlarge the opportunities for the child in the secondary modern school. Too many education authorities are seeking to lay down artificial lines of demarcation. Those who talk so loudly about freedom of choice mean freedom of choice for one group rather than for the whole school population.
These new clauses are the minimum provisions required in seeking to change the Bill. Many parents will find the Bill's provisions totally unacceptable. We know that Cheshire uses the system to divide those children who are to go to independent schools from those who are to remain in the State system. The parents are most distressed, because they do not know the basis on which decisions are arrived at. When parents are given the chance to appeal, they are told very little. Frequently they put forward a case and have no idea whether their arguments are acceptable or whether they will make the slightest difference to the selection process. That is the reality of the present scheme. If children are creamed off in that way, what will happen when there are further divisions of the school population?

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Education Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I had hoped that the Secretary of State would intervene at this moment.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Lady and I represent Cheshire constituencies. The Bill does no more than return to the local education authority the right to choose whether or not to opt for comprehensive or selective schools. Cheshire has decided, despite the freedom of the Bill, to have a comprehensive system. Therefore, I cannot understand what the hon. Lady's argument has to do with the Bill.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State knows well that there is tremendous pressure from some of his Back-Bench colleagues and that the education committee in Cheshire is in a difficult position. I am happy to pay tribute to the Conservative chairman of that committee, who at least has faced rather more responsibility than Conservative Front-Bench Members. He has been prepared to say that the county has gone a long way down the road towards comprehensive education, that large sums of money have been spent and therefore that the system should continue. He knows well that if there is a way to throw the matter into reverse

Cheshire's Conservative-controlled education committee will do that. In the words of the Under-Secretary, the committee can " turn back the clock ". We have to make sure that if such a disaster strikes Cheshire there will be some form of protection for the children. There will be no protection for them from a Conservative-controlled education authority while there is pressure from Conservative Back Benchers.
It is always wearing when so many hon. Members who do not lake part in debates come in at the last moment just to listen but not to put forward political points to justify a Bill such as this. That attitude marked the whole matter in Committee and is the reasoning behind the proposed change. It is no use talking about a second Education Bill. If the Government were concerned about education they would have waited and brought forward a considered measure. The Bill is a gesture of the most politically empty sort and it may cause untold damage. The only way to improve it is to accept the new clauses.

Mr. Dobson: I have said before in the House that my knowledge of education does not border on the academic. It is based entirely on my experience as a child at school and subsequently as a parent of children at other schools. All those schools were State schools. Therefore, I have an advantage over the bulk of the Conservative Cabinet and Conservative Members. Perhaps they should keep quiet during the debate because their experience of the State system is peripheral in the extreme.

Mr. Rhodes James: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that some Conservative Members, including myself, educated their children at State schools? Therefore, we have an equal knowledge and understanding of the matter. Many of us are involved in the governorship of State schools and have been involved in the comprehensivisation scheme for many years. I hope that the hon. Member will allow us that.

Mr. Dobson: I willingly accept that there are a number of Conservative Members who send their children to State schools. As for some of those hon. Members serving as school governors, I can only say that some of their ancestors served as governors in the colonies—and the relationships involved are similar.
Before I was so elegantly interrupted, I said that I had to draw on my experiences and bring to bear one basic criterion, as do all my hon. Friends, namely, the need to ensure that resources are allocated to those most in need.
Although I represent a constituency which is as urban as any, I was born in the country in what is now called North Yorkshire and I went to a village school. The system there was so peculiar that, despite the passage of the Education Act 1944, only girls got through the 11-plus. That was because the benighted East Riding county council had a girls' grammar school but no grammar school for boys. It had to rent places in neighbouring authorities, including the city of York.
I remember that six years after the passage of the 1944 Act I got through the 11-plus, and what I remember most when the results were announced at my school was the disappointment on the

faces of some of my friends whom I knew to be as intelligent and well educated as myself but who had not passed the 11-plus.
They and I knew that in those benighted days if they did not go on to a grammar school in York they had to stay at the village school until the end of their school careers and would not benefit very much from it. There was virtually no possibility of those children going to the grammar school because there was no provision for transfer between schools and certainly not to grammar schools.
My wife, my eldest child and I were disappointed that we did not get our daughter into the mixed comprehensive school of our choice, but we had the opportunity to choose to send her to another mixed comprehensive school in our area.
If the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way. If he does not, I shall be grateful if he will keep quiet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I help the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that he relates his argument to one of the new clauses?

Mr. Dobson: I hope that you will accept that my ramble is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I said at the beginning of my speech that I can draw only on my own experiences and relate them to the Bill and the proposed new clauses.
Under the system of grammar school and secondary modern school differentiation, there is virtually no provision for transfer between schools after the first determination at the age of 11. That is still true in most of the country, and certainly in Cheshire.
A full comprehensive system provides fairly easy transfer of children in later years if the family moves or if the children of parents become dissatisfied with a school. That is a vital part of the freedom that we hear so much about. It is important to try to maintain that freedom.
One other bit of my experience before I came here was working for the local government Ombudsman. Some of the


worst cases that we ever had to deal with were those of parents whose children had failed to get into grammar schools. The parents complained that there was something wrong with what the county council had done—it nearly always was the county council. In many of those cases, strictly speaking there was nothing wrong with what the council had done, but children had had terrible experiences, particularly in Cheshire. Innumerable children failed, or looked as though they might fail, to pass the 11-plus, which continues in Cheshire. There were children who were faced with crammers from morning until night. They were crammed before they went to school, at school, in the lunch hour and after school at night, and they still did not get through. They suffered immense damage, and there was no need for it.
No one can expect me to agree with the principles behind this Tory measure. If the Opposition take their role seriously, faced with such a measure we must try to offer a degree of protection to help children, parents and teachers and maintain and improve educational standards and children's opportunities. This series of new clauses is designed to do that.
One thread that runs through the clauses is that parents and teachers should be entitled to know what sort of courses, banding, transfer and facilities will prevail in both the grammar schools and non-grammar schools in an area, for a 10-year period. That is vital if parents, children and teachers are to be able to compare what is available and try to exercise what limited amount of choice the Bill gives them. If that information is not provided, one form of protection for children and their parents will be taken away.
There must also be provision for children in grammar schools and in secondary modern schools to transfer. Therefore, there must be meshing of the curriculum uniforms and other aspects of school life, so that if children are transferred from secondary modern schools to grammar schools or vice versa the trauma of that movement is kept to a minimum.
A further important point is that there must be comparability in teacher-pupil ratios. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."] I note that I even command the support

of some Conservative Members. One of the Education Ministers supplied me by way of a written answer with tables giving the staff-student ratios in every local authority area in the country. They show that, generally speaking, the ratios are worse in the secondary modern schools, a little better in the comprehensive schools and a good deal better in the grammar schools. If there is any justice, those ratios should be the other way round.
10.15 p.m.
It will interest Conservative Members to know that I have asked two questions about staff-student ratios at Eton, Harrow and Winchester. Despite the fact that the information is collected by the Department of Education, Ministers refuse to disclose it on the ground that it is some sort of secret, although one can obtain it from those who are touting places in such schools.
There is a basic principal that should apply. Resources in this country, or any country, should be devoted predominantly to those most in need. This is a trivial and nasty Bill. For all sorts of procedural reasons, we have not had a proper chance to consider it. I am not criticising the Chair. I am criticising those on the Government Front Bench and the officials behind them.
It is our duty to try to protect the people who are most likely to suffer from the introduction of this measure. The poor and the ill informed in the county areas are those most likely to suffer. I know that this is the case because the Government Front Bench are not really concerned about people who are badly off and ill informed. They have introduced a measure which they believe will reward some of their friends. But it will reward only a minority of the country with the continuation of a divisive and irrelevant education system. I hope that the House will support this string of clauses. They are intended to provide a far better system, even within the basic framework of the Bill, than the one put forward. I commend the new clauses.

Mr. Flannery: How lovely it is to have an audience of the present size. For most of the day, we have been faced by the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Practically no Tories have listened, shown any interest or bothered


to attend. Now they have come. We will have to teach them a thing or two.
Earlier, before the amicable relationship between our two Front Benches became apparent to us, I went out for two minutes. I spoke to a Tory, who asked me " Are you going to go on all night to get rid of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill? " I was serious when I replied " No. We are going to discuss education, possibly all night." Conservative Members stopped smiling when I said that. I said that we intended to discuss education because it was extremely important in its own right. That is why we are discussing the new clauses. They are vitally important. They are so good that I would have thought Conservative Members would vote for them. I was fairly confident until the first speech made by a Tory today. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) shattered the silence of the Tory Benches when he spoke. There was also an intervention from the Secretary of State. I forgot what he said. I do not think it was very important.
I want to describe why we are so determined. I sat for about 90 hours during the passing of the 1976 Act. We spent about 80 of those hours on the first three clauses, which were comprehensive clauses. On the 1979 Bill, which did not go through because of the general election, we sat for a couple of months. On this Bill, undoing what we have done over a long period of discussion lasting about 90 hours, we spent three sessions of two and a half hours each. That is utterly disgraceful. I do not know how the deal was arrived at. Three sittings were thought to be sufficient to undo what we had done.
The reason why things have gone wrong tonight is dissatisfaction on these Benches. We are determined to fight on behalf of all our children, 85 per cent. of whom are in comprehensive schools, and to stop the Tories undoing the system. They know nothing about the State system. In saying that, I apologise to the three of them who do. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is still sulking. He threw his papers down earlier and almost hit the Minister, so angry was he because he went to a State school. I compliment him.
I want to enable all our children to have a first-class education in comprehensive schools, which have had massively

better results that the education system produced before.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the new clauses.

Mr. Flannery: My speech is aimed directly at new clause 1. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It is difficult to get beyond new clause 1, there is so much meat in it. It is a beautiful clause, drafted perfectly. It relates very much to State schools, which the Tories may be forgiven for knowing nothing about since they have never been in them. But these are some of the harsh realities that they will have to face, because they will be here for a long time.
The Tories want to get their hands on the education system because they have never been happy about the removal of the 11-plus. [Interruption.] I suggest that the relationship between the two Front Benches should now be broken. The Minister can get off his knees.
The abolition of the 11-plus is supported by the vast majority of Tory parents. Tory councils will have to face that. In the old days, large numbers of people in one area of my city were so ashamed if their children had not passed the 11-plus that they were not seen in public on that Saturday. What a disgusting thing to blare in a child's ears at the age of 11 that he is a failure because he has not passed the 11-plus. How dare any of us do that?
The Tories, of course, need not worry about things like that. They have the money to send their children to the crammers and prep schools. They do not need this new clause. [Interruption.] I am talking only about the majority of the Tories.
Paragraph (a) of new clause 1 refers to
The nature, basis and criteria used in any process of allocation of pupils".
The process has been described adequately by some of my hon. Friends. At the ages of five, six or seven years, children are decided to be " grammar school material ". Great steps are taken on 3 March between 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock in the morning to ensure that they satisfy the narrow criteria put in front of them.
I invigilated for many years. I remember doing so over sick children. I remember going to a school where there used to be seven sick children. An important inspector and two teachers would invigilate over those poor children. That is the reality. That is what occurred. Often the children had to go to another school that they had never attended before to sit the examination. They had to take their own equipment. Conservative Members do not know anything about that. They never had to go through that. However, that is what our children had to go through.
After they had done all that, after they had taken a couple of two-hour or three-hour examinations, most of the children were told " You are a little failure and you cannot go to the grammar school. Only two or three from your school can go. The rest of you cannot go." That is something that Conservative Members have never had to face. However, our children did. The Conservative Party and Conservative Members would have our children face that all over again. We have brought forward the new clauses to try to set that right.
The clauses are designed to try to get the best that we can from the ruin that will be perpetrated against our children. These are rescue clauses. They have been carefully thought out to save our children from the full assault against comprehensive education that we see developing.
There has been talk about transfers. It proved virtually impossible to transfer a child from a secondary modern school to a grammar school. There were only so many places in the grammar schools. There are only so many places in grammar schools now, and that will continue to be the position. Although there may be a desire to transfer children from secondary modern schools to grammar schools, the reality is that to find places at grammar schools it will be necessary to transfer grammar school children to secondary modern schools.
There has been much talk about freedom. What degree of freedom do 85 to 90 per cent. of parents and children have? What choice did they have? Only 10 to 15 per cent. at the most had any choice. I see that one or two Conservative Members are nodding. They probably lived

through what I have described and they know the reality.
The Government are trying to put back the clock and to restore the old system. We are opposing that. How could we do otherwise? Transfers will not be easy. However, Conservative Members continue to talk about freedom. When the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brent, North, talks about freedom, he becomes almost lyrical.
The Government claim that freedom will be restored to the people. In one area freedom may mean that 5 or 10 per per cent. of Children will have grammar school places. In another area the figures might be 15 to 20 per cent. Therefore, the child who lives in one area suffers compared with children in other areas.
The Minister has already been asked what will happen when a transfer takes place from a comprehensive area to an area in which there are no comprehensive schools. The hon. Gentleman said that he will look into that carefully. He will have to look into it extremely carefully. We are facing severe problems.
Paragraph (c) of new clause 1 refers to
The nature, range and extent of the courses and options offered ".
The courses and options available in the comprehensive system are immensely better than they have ever been in history. The Conservative Party has run down the Labour Party and talked about the quality of education being poorer. At present the quality of education is falling due to the capitation allowance being reduced. We know that the education cuts will have massive effects and possibly undo a great deal of the education system. That was said only recently by 21,000 head teachers.
What range of options will be open to the children who will bear the brunt of the cuts? We are trying to give them a range of options. I recently spoke to some book publishers. They told me that their book sales were falling dreadfully because of the prices.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is the hon. Member aware that I was educated at an elementary school


and failed the 11-plus but went to night school for three nights a week over about five years to educate myself? That did me no harm at all. Is he further aware that my children are also in a State school, and that many Conservative Members have had no better advantages than Labour Members but could make a more intelligent contribution to the debate than the hon. Member?

Mr. Flannery: I have already complimented the hon. Gentleman and two of his hon. Friends. I do not know why Conservative Members keep referring to this. I have already made clear that those three hon. Members are more or less on our side and that I hope that they will vote with us.
The first great Act in education was the 1944 Act. The 1976 Act was the second. The 1944 Act is acclaimed by most people, but, good as it was, it enshrined selection. The 1976 Act, however, introduced a great qualitative change in education. It unshrined selection. It took our education system a monumental leap forward. It ensured that our children had access to the highest forms of education. The Conservatives do not understand that. They use such expressions as " social engineering " against us.
The wide range of options available to children has meant that the number of them going to university and to further and higher education is bigger than ever. One wonders whether the Conservatives are frightened of educating our children. On the one hand they talk of the quality of education dropping, although it is not. All the reports have proved the black papers to be so much trash and that standards have gone ever higher. On the other hand they introduce the Bill, which will positively lower the quality of education. I cannot understand how the Government can speak of a desire to educate our children and at the same time introduce this nasty, squalid little Bill. It is not even an education document. It is just a nasty little piece of legal jargon.
The Conservatives do not understand criteria that are based on the process of allocation. Our new clause seeks to establish those criteria. In new clause 8 we want to make clear how many children will be put in each school. We want to know what will be the process of selection.
We support these clauses and we invite the three hon. Members to whom I have referred to do the same. The clauses are a valiant attempt to try to retrieve what we can from the effects of this nasty little Bill. I hope that our people will know that we fought the battle as well as we could. I hope that some Conservatives will support our efforts tonight and show that they have a genuine interest in education.

Miss Wright: Several of my hon. Friends have made the point that we were to a large extent making the educational case on this so-called Education Bill to our own Benches, with a very notable absence of Conservative Members. I had begun to wonder whether a large proportion of the Conservative Members had perhaps remembered the words of a report which was issued under the aegis of an earlier hon. Member for Saffron Walden, now Lord Butler, as long ago as 1943. That report, which was adopted by the whole House, pointed out, 36 years ago, that
The serious weaknesses of selection at 11 are now acknowledged. There is nothing to be said in favour of a system which submits children at the age of 11 to a competitive examination on which not only their future schooling but their future careers may depend.
Whatever Conservative Members may think now, over the years a fair proportion of Conservative members of education committees have also been converted. In this country at the moment the point is that it is not the Labour Party only, it is not the teachers only, but a great deal of the whole range of educational opinion, the whole range of education authorities—with the exception of a very few backwoodsmen, led by the Under-Secretary of State—who are now determined to turn the clock back.
In 1971 or 1972, under the then Conservative Administration, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is now Prime Minister, invited all education authorities to think again on the principle of comprehensive education. I remember that it impressed us quite a lot in the West Midlands that the local education authority which immediately said that on educational grounds it was not prepared to go back on its commitment to comprehensive education was the one education authority which had never been under Labour control—Solihull.
There is a very good educational case for the continuance of comprehensive education. It is now generally accepted in educational circles—I do not expect Conservative Members to understand what we are talking about—that there is no point at all in trying, at the age of 10, 11 or 12, to assess the abilities of a child, because that involves assessing a child on its background and the sort of advantages it has had in its earlier years.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) was speaking, I referred to the different rates at which children in Birmingham used to pass the 11-plus. They did not vary a great deal from year to year. I can well remember the range when I first asked about it in 1958. It was from 4 per cent. in one of the most deprived areas of central Birmingham to 66 per cent. in one of the plushiest areas of Binning-ham. The next time I had the figures, in 1969, they ranged from 6·1 per cent. in the neighbouring area to the one which previously had the lowest pass level to 70 per cent. in one of the two plushiest areas in Birmingham.
What was being reflected every time was the assessment of the level which a child had reached at a particular time as a result of the help it had received from its background and parents. That was not denied or challenged by anyone in the education committee, not even by the then Tory chairman. It was not denied that we were not measuring the innate ability of the child or its capacity to take advantage of education.
Yet the Bill still considers that to be a reasonable system to offer our children. It is saying to them " If you fail at the age of 11, you are a certain type of person and you will get a certain type of education." My hon. Friends have spoken of the various methods of selection and examination, which vary from one part of the country to another. A point which should be more emphasised is that there is a set number of grammar school places, so that the level of ability—I do not accept that it is a level of achievement—at which a child is offered a place will vary from year to year according to the size of the age group.
In checking over a 10-year period in Birmingham, we found that in one year alone there was a five point difference.

For example, children who in 1965 would have gone to grammar school would not have done so in 1970 and would have been sent to other schools, on the assumption that they were incapable of profiting by the type of education to which children of precisely the same level had gone five years before.
We spent a great deal of time in Birmingham in consultation with parents and teachers, and Birmingham now has a comprehensive system. But it is complicated by the freedom of voluntary aided schools either to come into the system or to say that they are not prepared to accept it as it is. Thus, a very small number of voluntary aided schools was able to hold up a system which the elected representatives of the people felt was the right system for the children of the area. Nevertheless, we have vastly better provision in the comprehensive schools.
Now, even before this Bill is passed, there is a proposal by the local education authority—naturally, it was mooted in the press first and not through consultations, even in the council—to issue section 13 notices as soon as the Bill is law in order to turn an existing comprehensive school into a grammar school. What the authority proposes to do with the children who are already in the school is not made clear, and what it will propose to do in the future with children who might have gone there, and where they will be sent, is also not clear. But one thing is clear. The authority does not intend to make any provision for general consultation with either parents or teachers over a proposal to go back on the system which we now have.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John Butcher: The hon. Lady will recall that she was the architect of a plan which allowed two years flat from inception to implementation of a full comprehensive scheme involving split sites. I am sure that there are many people in Birmingham who rather regret that they were not allowed adequate consultation when that " reform "—I put the word in inverted commas—went through so rapidly.

Miss Wright: There is another Member of this House who is much given to talking about mandates. A clear mandate was given to the Birmingham Labour


Party at the time, in two elections, when we had discussed the whole thing in great detail, and, having established the mandate that we would go to a comprehensive system, we then discussed the details massively, and without any preconceived ideas, before they were put into effect.
We have had a fair amount of discussion—or, rather, not discussion so much as interjection from Conservative Members, since there has been little discussion conducted by them—about standards. During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) there was a reference to standards. My hon. Friend said that standards had been rising, and there were several loud comments to the opposite effect. I think it only reasonable to look at that aspect of the matter.
I have taken out some figures from the DES statistics for 1976–77. In 1964, when there were only 8 per cent. of—

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you advise those hon. Members on the Government Benches who wish to carry on conversations to do so outside the Chamber so that those of us who wish to hear my hon. Friend may do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I shall not offer any advice on that, but I think that all hon. Members know the rule about private conversations. I am listening and I can hear the hon. Lady.

Miss Wright: I can, of course, start again if my hon. Friends are having difficulty.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Unfortunately, due to the noise, I did not hear part of what my hon. Friend said with reference to the consultative process in the Birmingham area, on which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) commented. I should be grateful if she would go over that again, because I had what I believe to be a similar experience in my constituency and I should like to compare my experience with hers.

Miss Wright: For your sake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not attempt to go over all that I said, but for my hon.

Friend's sake I shall elaborate a little on it.
After it became clear to us in 1970 or so that we should be taking over control of the council by 1972, we put clearly to the electorate in every ward in the city, in both 1971 and 1972, that we had a firm commitment to make a change over to comprehensive secondary education in Birmingham should we regain control. We pointed out to the people—I think that most of them were aware of it because there had been a great deal of discussion about it in the press over the years—that during the previous six years there had been constant dispute and discussion about what type of reorganisation we might have, with consequent anxieties being caused to parents and teachers and to the schools generally.
Three plans were put forward by the Conservative-controlled council. One was withdrawn because the leadership sat on it, the second was withdrawn because the electorate would not have it at any price, and we were never clear what happened to the third, which was also withdrawn. I believe that the vice-chairman of the education committee decided that he did not like it.
When we came to power, we made it clear that we were going for a secondary comprehensive system. We did not believe that we should have a selective system but we had no clear idea what the alternative should be. We consulted all the teacher organisations, and there were two series of meetings throughout Birmingham, first to discuss what parents felt about the type of organisation and then to discuss with them again some three months later the details that had been evolved with the teacher organisations. It involved 66 meetings, of which I was involved with well over half, so no one can suggest that there was no parental consultation. We did not alter the basic concept but we altered some of the details, and some original proposals were altered in line with ideas that parents put forward. In the past few years in Birmingham, as in the rest of the country, the number of youngsters who have been doing better and passing O-levels and A-levels has increased.
Our proposals to alleviate the effects of this rather nasty little Bill will at least give the House the opportunity to receive


information on what is happening in the few authorities that wish to go back on the system of comprehensive education. The one Tory local authority in the West Midlands is once more indicating that in no circumstances does it want to go back to a system of selective education. It was the first authority in the West Midlands that decided it would no longer fund pupils going to selective voluntary schools, direct grant or otherwise.
It is a question not of doctrinaire Labour policy but of educational policy. It is a policy backed by the major teachers' organisations, and, whether or not they agree on other issues, they agree on that. It has the support of the great majority of the educationists in the country.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I shall speak only for a short time, but I should like to support new clause 1, and in particular paragraph (c).
It was a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Anyone who can get my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to do something resembling a clog dance with the Under-Secretary of State in front of the Mace must be complimented.
I represent the largest single constituency in Tameside, and, therefore, I shall direct my remarks to that metropolitan district. From time to time we have heard the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary say that local people know best the kind of education suitable for their locality. Most of us would not disagree with that.
How can people express that view? At present in my constituency there are a number of well-intentioned people knocking at doors asking people to sign a petition which will eventually land on the desk of the Secretary of State. This petition will urge that the grammar schools in my constituency be saved. I have been canvassed, and I have heard from a number of my constituents that some of the questions posed are very different from those expected. Thus, this will not be a particularly scientific judgment, and I suggest that the Secretary of State does not take too much notice of it.
More important is the expression of opinion to the candidates in the local

election who stood fairly and squarely for comprehensive education. To be fair, the Conservatives in my constituency also made it an important plank in their platform. When Labour won 14 seats in the local election, we realised that the people were behind comprehensive education. Last year when the swing was against Labour, Tameside went against the tide and the former chairman of the education committee lost his seat fighting for the grammar schools. Tameside people are not too enamoured with the grammar shcools.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty saw these results, he said that the grammar schools in Tameside were as well prepared for the scientific and technological revolution as were the Polish cavalry for the Second World War. I hope that I have not misquoted him, but those were his words as far as I can remember.

Mr. Kinnock: That was smack on!

Mr. Pendry: I am glad about that. I am sure that the House recognises the extravagance of language and flair of my hon. Friend from time to time, but after I saw the figures I understood what he meant.
If one takes the O-level results at the five grammar schools in Tameside and compares them with the results of the five largest secondary modern schools, one sees that the secondary modern schools are well ahead. In French they beat the grammar schools, not only in total numbers but in percentage terms as well. There is only one grammar school in Tameside that takes O-level general studies; only one takes O-level geology, and only one takes O-level general science.
In the traditional O-level subjects in all five grammar schools, only 57 pupils passed in Latin out of the 96 taking it. Only 16 out of 40 passed in music and 96 out of 154 passed in art. In the A-level examinations, only 10 pupils took art. These figures destroy the myth of the Tameside education policy.
11 p.m.
On the applied and technical side, the position is even worse. The subjects offered in the grammar schools are as


follows: craftwork, one out of five grammar schools; economic and political affairs, one out of five; commerce, one out of five, geology, one out of five; physical science, one out of five, sociology, one out of five; commercial mathematics, two out of five; metalwork, two out of five. It is no wonder that Tory Members are talking among themselves, because they probably cannot believe what they are hearing. Those happen to be facts.
The following subjects are not taken at all in the Tameside grammar schools: environmental science, government and politics—pupils certainly need education on that subject when Tories are elected to councils; statistics and social studies, engineering science, computer science and health science. Woodwork was taken in three out of the five grammar schools—a total of 30 pupils only. We are talking about Greater Manchester and not about Mid-Sussex. In contrast, 538 pupils take English literature and 219 take religious studies.
At A-level the position is worse, and I should like the House to ponder these figures. In the five grammar schools as to calculated percentage of subjects with a pass rate less than the examination board average, we find in Ashton grammar school that 53 per cent. of subjects taken are less than the board's average; in Astley the figure is 41 per cent.; in Audenshaw 37 per cent., and in Fairfield 47 per cent. Only in Hyde does one see a figure of 30 per cent. Hyde looks like a very good school when one considers it in the round.
This explodes the myths put about by the Under-Secretary of State, who has been advising the Tory education chiefs. He should be ashamed of what he has done educationally to the sons and daughters of my constituents. Their parents expected a good education for those children.
I could go on, but I shall not do so. We believe that the Tories who are now in charge of education have no right to dictate to people. Certainly my constituents recognise that the system of education they want is the one for which Labour councillors stood in Tameside at the last election. They do not want to be

deprived of that system, and I hope that the House will not allow that to happen.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am half inclined to apologise to the House for detaining hon. Members at this time of night, but I have come hot-footed from a public meeting in my constituency which is considering the proposal by the local education authority to change the nature of the Erith school.
It was not until I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Miss Wright) that I felt compelled to appeal to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who I am delighted to see in the Chamber, to come to the assistance of the parents of the Erith school in the London borough of Bexley.
My hon. Friend told the House that when Birmingham was considering changing the educational pattern in that city she, as chairman of the education committee, spoke to more than 66 public meetings in the area explaining her authority's proposals and also consulted the teachers. Over a period of well over three months, she carried out extensive educational and consultative activities with the people of that area before submitting proposals under section 13 of the Education Act.
In the London borough of Bexley, on 26 June the education committee met and for the first time it became public knowledge that it was to make a proposal under section 13 to close the Erith school—a very successful all-range ability school, approved by the present Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. The proposal was to close that school and open two new schools, thus destroying what had been so painfully built up over recent years to the stage where educational standards surpassed those of the former grammar school.
The education committee considered the proposal on 26 June 1979 and it was followed up by a so-called consultative document that was sent to parents requiring them to submit their comments by 10 July, 14 days later. Many parents did not receive the document until a few days ago. Therefore, within that short time parents and teachers have to make their objections known—an impossible position. The proposal will be considered by the full council on 18 July, next week.

Mr. Christopher Price: There are precedents for that short period of notice. Our former colleague, Mr. Patrick Gordon-Walker gave Enfield one week only in which to consider its objections to his directions about a scheme. Mr. Justice Donaldson, as he then was, made some scathing comments in the High Court about the length of time that was allowed for educational consultation. Does my hon. Friend think that what is sauce for Mr. Gordon-Walker should be sauce for the Bexley council?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That case had not escaped my attention. There are many such cases that end up in the courts as a result of section 13 proposals.
I appealed at the public meeting in Bexley tonight on behalf of the parents—there were over 800 at the meeting—for the education committee to pause in its action. I do not want it to give explanations about the merits of its proposals. I ask only that a reasonable time is allowed before it makes its submissions to the Secretary of State.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to join me in asking the Bexley authority for adequate time for proper consultation before the proposal is submitted to him. When it is submitted to him, I know that he will be careful and fair about ensuring that the proper procedures are entered into. I hope that he can give us encouragement about the matter.

Mr. Kinnock: I hope that the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) will not fall on deaf ears. I understand that the local Tory chairman, Mr. Brian Sams, was reported in The Guardian about two weeks ago as saying that, in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State had said that he had no intention of making directions about revocations on established comprehensive systems, that was simply talk from a Tory Secretary of State. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the earliest opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and destroy the confidence of Mr. Brian Sams, who seems to be deliberately bent upon misinterpreting and misrepresenting Conservative policy.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I was at a loss to understand how the hon. Member for

Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) managed to make his speech on this Bill. Under the statute, if the Erith council puts in an application under section 13, it is required to give two months' notice. That is a statutory requirement and a statutory time provided for objectors.

Mr. Kinnock: Our debate has been wide-ranging and authoritative, especially since all the contributions except that of the Under-Secretary have come from Labour Members. It may be said to have been one of the most authoritative and expert debates ever to have taken place in the House.
The latest intelligence from the Secretary of State has made the whole business worth while because it demonstrates to the people of Erith that they have on their side the law and the understanding of the Department of Education and that the barbarians shall not have their way as easily as some of them may have presumed.
The debate has also been instructive in many other respects. I do not want to engage in the hyperbole of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) accused me. The Under-Secretary and I were not doing a clog dance. The Minister was deciding that it was better to live on his knees than to die on his feet. That demonstrated once again the wisdom of the hon. Gentleman, whom we all love and respect.
The Minister spoke of Education Bill one and Education Bill two. I am still waiting for Bill one because the measure before us has little to do with education, as I am sure the Minister would acknowledge in a more sober moment. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has not sought to represent it as an Education Bill. He and the Secretary of State represent it as a liberating Bill, and it is on that basis that we have had to assess it on Second Reading, in Committee and, more exhaustively, tonight. That is the basis on which we have to judge its proposals and the new clauses.
With respect to my other hon. Friends, it seems that the new clause that most clearly embraces the case that we wish to present, as well as taking into account many of the proposals in other new clauses, is that moved by my hon. Friend


the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). My hon. Friend was unfortunate in being overshadowed by the fact that the immediate aftermath of his speech was that the House was plunged into turmoil.
There may be some hon. Members in the Chamber who did not follow all that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said. His speech was as comprehensive, in the truest sense, and challenging as is his new clause. He seeks to insert into the Bill criteria against which we can judge the efficacy, in education terms, of the Bill and the selective system of education that it attempts to enshrine by permitting the survival of such systems in areas where local authorities have managed to avoid the obligations of the 1976 Act.
11.15 p.m.
It is unfortunate that the Under-Secretary conveyed the impression that he does not intend to accept the new clause which might have given an educational garb to an otherwise naked Bill. What is even more unfortunate is that the hon. Gentleman chose to misrepresent my hon. Friend's intention. My hon. Friend says in his new clause that he wants the publication of certain details of educational provision at secondary level in the areas of authorities affected by the Bill. He is talking about
the nature, basis and criteria used in any process of allocation … arrangements made for transfer of pupils … the nature, range and extent of the courses and options offered ".
The Under-Secretary has participated in the birth of one or two of these matters of the publication of results and of criteria of secondary schools. Indeed, if we are to believe the newspapers, he has the accolade of the Prime Minister in that she, too, has embraced the idea of the publication of results.
I do not think that my hon. Friend was talking about the publication of results. I do not think that he was talking about the kind of league tables that would ensue from such a process. I am sure that my hon. Friend has thought about the matter, and I know that he will object as strongly as I do to the proposals of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the publication of such academic

results, because we know that the reason is not the stimulation and elevation of standards in secondary schools but the creation of results league tables, which would have a disastrous effect on the morale of many teaching staffs, pupils and parents. We entirely reject the idea that that is an appropriate way in which to try to improve standards in schools or to energise and encourage teachers, pupils or parents. What it would induce is a self-perpetuating failure.
All schools go through brief difficult periods of having a reduction in the standard of results. If people were asked to judge by that standard, a school could find itself in considerable difficulty. That is not what my hon. Friend was saying; he was saying something entirely different.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not seek to use anything said by my hon. Friend to try to legitimise the proposals that he says he will put to us in the Education Bill (No. 2), which for reasons of greater accuracy we shall call the Education Bill (No. 1), when it eventually appears.
I turn to the question of transfer. Here again, the hon. Gentleman had a slightly different interpretation, but I do not quarrel with that. Although it broadened the debate, it was also very illuminating. The hon. Gentleman put the proposition that a core curriculum would be desirable because of the way in which it facilitated the easier transfer geographically of pupils from school to school.
The unfortunate thing is that the only illustration that the hon. Gentleman gave us of the minimal difficulties encountered in that process of geographical movement involved the movement out of the selective system of Trafford into the nonselective system of Oxford. Then, when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Miss Wright) put in the most direct fashion the problems of people trying to move in the other geographical and educational direction, her strictures were rather pooh-poohed by the hon. Gentleman.
However, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that if, for instance, someone from my constituency with a child of secondary school age were to move to, say, Trafford or, as it is today, benighted Tameside, or to Kingston upon Thames


or other parts of the country that have a selective system or a mixed system of selective schools and comprehensive schools, it would be the devil's own job to try to move the child from a comprehensive school into the closest secondary school, which might be a grammar school. The criterion used by the receiving school would be the child's performance at 11 years of age, whether the child came from a selective school area or a non-selective school area.
Unless the hon. Gentleman produces another circular, another Bill or a fiat of some description ordering that local education authorities or headmasters of schools shall neglect the evidence of testing at 11 years of age in deciding whether to accept incoming children into their schools, that situation will remain. Indeed, it will be perpetuated by the Bill. We reject and criticise that situation most strongly.
The hon. Gentleman's hope for a core-curriculum is dynamited by the retention of the selective system in the areas that will take advantage of the Bill and the areas that have previously escaped the provisions of the 1976 Act. As the hon. Gentleman said himself in an undying phrase in the 1969 black paper,
One cannot have grammar schools alongside comprehensive schools or the latter will be nothing but misnamed secondary modern schools.
Some under-informed people consider that we are being a little strong in our objection. Because there are fewer than 300 grammar schools left in Britain, because they are scattered and because 83 per cent. of children, and probably 90 per cent. within a few years, will be able to go to non-selective schools, the argument runs that the Opposition in the House of Commons should not be criticising the Bill so strongly. The hon. Gentleman knows, or knew in 1969, although 10 years is a long time in politics, as it is in education, that the perpetuation of a selective school system not only affects the children in the school but affects the whole educational provision in the local authority area where the school is situated.
That is why we are bent upon the removal of the selective system and the removal of the grammar schools so that we can have choice in education, a real choice for parents, proper curricula and

mobility between areas and so that parents can be assured of a high and rising common level of provision throughout the whole country which is not dotted with an archipelago of selective school systems perpetuated by this misbegotten Bill.
I turn now to the nature, range and extent of the courses and options. The most effective demolition of the idea of trying to keep grammar schools in this oxygen tent invented by the Tory Party for the sake of the election was delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to look at the A-level results from Tameside. More important, in an area where people are making all sorts of claims for the grammar school system—where it is the most hotly fought and contentious issue of local politics—the Minister should look at the narrowness of the curriculum in the five grammar schools of Tameside and ask himself whether he can be content in 1979 to associate with, endorse or encourage the kind of people who will permit that type of system to continue to exist.

Dr. Boyson: I did not intervene when the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) referred to the Tameside results. It was not an argument that concerned these clauses. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has seen the comparison that has been published of the Tameside results and the Manchester results from the same socio-economic groups, which shows the Tameside results as about 50 per cent. better than those in Manchester.

Mr. Kinnock: We can have many lengthy arguments on that matter. There is the question of interpretation. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman enters into these matters with an open mind. Given the way that the education provision in Tameside has been distorted by the perpetuation of these schools over the years, by the narrowness of the curriculum and by some of the pass rates seen in the results, it is perhaps not much wonder that there is this disparity in the results that the Minister has available. But we shall examine them in detail, and I hope that during the discussion on the Education Bill in November we shall have an exhaustive opportunity to go into these things thoroughly.
Whatever comparisons the Minister chooses to make at this stage, the objective evidence given by my hon. Friend and shown in these results—it applies to the O-level results as well—illustrates that the Tameside situation is nothing for supporters of the grammar schools to boast about. What concerns us most, however, is not the exchange of statistics or the political profit to be made—I am sure that the Minister will agree—but the effect on the pupils, the attitude of the parents and the question whether we are equipping young people to take their proper place and enjoy their full opportunities in society. With this sort of Bill, that is not as possible as it should be in 1979.
That is why I hope that my hon. Friend will press his new clause. That is why we shall continue to fight as we have started with this Bill. As the issues become even clearer, as the intentions of the Tory Party become more obtuse and even more corrupting on our education system, so we shall fight all the harder until we achieve the victory of throwing them and their outdated ideas out altogether.

Mr. Spearing: It is a privilege on Report for Back Benchers to be able to move new clauses and to have the right of reply to the debate. Perhaps " reply " is the wrong word, because, with the exception of the Minister, there have been no speeches against the new clauses. Although there are procedural reasons why some Conservative Members have not spoken, there are political and logical reasons as well. There is no case, and they cannot make one.
I thank my hon. Friends for their support for my new clause, and I commend the new clauses we have discussed with it. If hon. Members opposite doubt what I say about separatist education, they should, during the summer Recess, assuming that Hansard is printed, read the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). Not only did he support the clause; he showed in detail, from experience inside a secondary modern school, why the Tories are wrong.
There were few hon. Members listening to my hon. Friend's speech, but it would be an education to those who may consider themselves well educated but who

in some respects clearly are not. The laughter confirms my charge. There is abysmal ignorance among Government supporters, not just about the so-called State system in general but about the former and existing secondary modern schools in particular.
When I introduced the new clause, I said that it was merely following Conservative principles—or, at least, principles which Conservatives could with good conscience support. That was to extend the freedom of parents and individuals by providing them with information, and, secondly, to balance rights of choice for their local authorities with the responsibilities to provide reasons for the policies pursued. The Minister did not dissent from that. Indeed—I hope that my hon. Friends do not go for me—he agreed with much of what I said. That makes me slightly worried. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he becomes Dr. Jekyll, I flatly disagree when he becomes his black papist Mr. Hyde. I think that he was in his Dr. Jekyll guise today.
11.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman accepted the principle of new clause 1. However, he said that he would not have it just yet. I suggest that he is doing a disservice to a good many parents, especially those in the constituency that includes Trafford. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) contributed to the debate and read some correspondence sent by the education officers of Trafford. The constituent who wrote to my hon. Friend had no benchmark by which to trace or judge the replies that he received from the authority. The Minister says that he should have, but not yet. He is saying, in effect, let the bright lights come, but not yet. By making that admission he is, I suggest, afraid of putting the new clause in the Bill. If the clause were inserted, it would reveal at once the inherent drawbacks of selective education.
If and when a new Bill is presented to the House, we shall read it carefully to see how far the principles enshrined in the new clause are repeated in the same context. I refer to the Bill that the Minister says he will present to the House.
The Bill that we are trying to amend is of a different nature from the one that


the hon. Gentleman has promised to the House, at least if we understand him correctly. The Bill before us, which we are trying to amend, is fully in the restrictive tradition of the 1870 and 1902 Acts. They may have been innovatory in their time but they were restrictive in their effect, as is the Bill.
Some Conservative Members have been having a good laugh this evening. They are in favour, or many of them are, of the selective system of secondary education. Many of the ills that we suffer in Britain today, especially difficulties of communication, of understanding, divisions in society due to different backgrounds and different forms of education, and the assumptions of superiority by some who have received certain types of education, may well spring from the deep divisions that separatist education has etched into British society over the past 50 years or more. Our national recovery,

which we all want to see, is prejudiced by the fissures in society that can be directly traced to the separatist system of education that many Conservative Members continue to advocate.
By tradition, Conservatives will buy their way out of the State education system if they can. If they cannot, they will create their own class system, paid for by public money, inside State schools. That is what the Bill is trying to do. The new clause would ameliorate that effect. The Government have rejected it. Their Bill will go into the dustbin of history, as have other restrictive Bills, and I hope that it will find itself there as soon as possible. I ask the House to vote for new clause 1.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 277.

Division No. 55]
AYES
[11.35 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Frank
Kinnock, Nell


Adams, Allen
Dormand, Jack
Lamborn, Harry


Allaun, Frank
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted


Anderson, Donald
Dubs, Alfred
Leighton, Ronald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Eastham, Ken
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Beith, A. J.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCartney, Hugh


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ennals, Rt Hon David
McElhone, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Faulds, Andrew
McKay, Allen (penistone)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Field, Frank
McKelvey, William


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMahon, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNally, Thomas


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Foster, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Magee, Bryan


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, David (Gl's[...]w, Shettles'n)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Canavan, Dennis
Ginsburg, David
Meacher, Michael


Carmichael, Nell
Graham, Ted
Mikardo, Ian


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Cook, Robin F.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cowans, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Newens, Stanley


Crowther, J. S.
Haynes, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cryer, Bob
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
O'Neill, Martin


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
Parry, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howells, Geraint
Pendry, Tom


Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Hon Greville
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Race, Reg


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dixon, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)




Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Spriggs, Leslie
Welsh, Michael


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stallard, A. W.
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Stott, Roger
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Rooker, J. W.
Straw, Jack
Whitlock, William


Roper, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ryman, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Winnick, David


Sever, John
Tilley, John
Woodall, Alec


Sheerman, Barry
Tinn, James
Woolmer Kenneth


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Wright, Sheila


Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)



Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Snape, Peter
Weetch, Ken
Mr. John Evans and[...]


Soley, Clive
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. George Morter[...]


Spearing, Nigel






NOES


Adley, Robert
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Alexander, Richard
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dorrell, Stephen
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Arnold, Tom
Dover, Denshore
Kimball, Marcus


Aspinwall, Jack
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Timothy
Lang, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Elliott, Sir William
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Eyre, Reginald
Latham, Michael


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Farr, John
Lawson, Nigel


Best, Keith
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lee, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Blackburn, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Body, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forman, Nigel
Loveridge, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fowler. Rt Hon Norman
Luce, Richard


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fox, Marcus
Lyell, Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macfarlane, Neil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
MacGregor, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fry, Peter
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bright, Graham
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Macmillan, Fit Hon M. (Farnham)


Brinton, Tim
Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Brittan, Leon
Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gorst, John
Major, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Brotherton, Michael
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marlow, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Grieve, Percy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mates, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mather, Carol


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, John Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mellor, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Haselhurst, Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hawksley, Warren
Miscampbell, Norman


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Channon, Paul
Heddle, John
Moate, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry
Monro, Hector


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hill, James
Moore, John


Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morgan, Geraint


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Clegg, Walter
Hooson, Tom
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Murphy, Christopher


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Myles, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neale, Gerrard


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Neubert, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Normanton, Tom


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Nott, Rt Hon John







Onslow, Cranley
St. John-Stevas, Rt Kon Norman
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Oppenheim, Rt Kon Mrs Sally
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thornton, Malcolm


Osborn, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Trippler, David


Parkinson, Cecil
Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Parris, Matthew
Silvester, Fred
van Straubenzee, W. R,


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Patten, John (Oxford)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Waddington, David


Percival, Sir Ian
Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Speller, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Spence, John
Walker, Rt Hon. Peter (Worcester)


Porter, George
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Waller, Gary


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Prior, Rt Hon James
Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Stainton, Keith
Watson, John


Raison, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rathbone, Tim
Stanley, John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Stevens, Martin
Wheeler, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Wolfson, Mark


Rifklnd, Malcolm
Tebbit, Norman



Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Temple-Morris, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Rost, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thompson, Donald

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

ABOLITION OF DUTY TO GIVE EFFECT TO
COMPREHENSIVE PRINCIPLE

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, leave out line 11 and insert:
'shall be repealed on 1st January 1980.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 5 in page 2, line 2, at end insert:
' provided such application is not made before 1st December, 1979.'.

No. 17, in page 2, line 2, at end insert:
' The Secretary of State shall not revoke any application under this subsection unless a resolution to make the application has been approved by more than half of the members of the local education authority, managers or governors concerned at a meeting convened for the purpose of passing such a resolution '.

No. 10, in page 2, line 11 leave out '1st October' and insert ' 31st December '.

No. 13, in page 2, line 11, at end add:
'(4C) No application for revocation under subsection 3 above shall be made in respect of proposals due to be implemented after September 1979.'.

No. 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert:
'(3A) This Act shall come into force on 1st December 1979.'.

Mr. Mikardo: I shall be brief—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber or sit down? I cannot hear the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).

Mr. Mikardo: I shall be brief in moving the amendment, for two reasons. First, I cannot bring to bear on the subject anything like the deep and wide expertise that has been exhibited by many of my hon. Friends in the earlier debates. This is a subject in which I am not a specialist, but it is manifest that, ignorant as I am, I know a great deal more about it than all the Conservative Members except the Under-Secretary, because none of them knows enough about it to utter even a single syllable.
The second reason is that the main purpose of the amendment has been discussed earlier. Is it necessary to ensure that when a major change is being made—[HON. MEMBERS: " Order, order."] Mr. Deputy Speaker, a lot of the Conservative Members seem to be beginning to feel the effects of the cordials that they drank with their dinner.
A great deal of the point of the amendment has been covered in earlier debates. When we are making a major change such as this, which will affect the welfare and the careers of very large numbers of children, and, therefore, is a


matter of deep interest to very large numbers of parents of those children, we ought not to act in a way which is much too hurried.
One of my hon. Friends, who has much experience in these matters, described earlier what a long and patient process of discussion, negotiation, consultation and exchange of information was gone through by those authorities which changed to non-selective secondary education and, in the course of making the change, took the greatest care to ensure that they carried with them the support of parents, of teachers, of educationists and of all the other people who were interested. That was not a very quick process. It was a slow process. Democracy is a slow process. The business of dispersing the power to influence decisions—which is what democracy is really about—is a very slow process, and sometimes a very troublesome one. But all that was gone through in the course of making the change to non-selective education.
Here we are proposing to provide the opportunity for making the directly opposite change in the course literally of a few weeks. My only purpose in tabling the amendment was to say " For goodness sake, can we not have a few weeks more? ". There will be a great deal for local education authorities to do in this process of making the change—unless they are to ride roughshod over parental feelings. I get the impression from our debate so far that some Conservative Members are quite happy to ride roughshod over the feelings of parents. But unless the authorities are prepared to ride roughshod over the feelings of parents, a bit more time must be provided so that there can be some consultation.
It is not only parents who are concerned. I read with very great care all the proceedings—there were only three sittings—in Committee. There were raised in Committee the special problems of a number of particular areas. There manifestly are such special problems in North Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) mentioned the problem which arises in his neck of the woods from the fact that the county council takes a very different view about what is the best form of secondary education from that taken by the council of the city or borough of Leicester. It is

not for me to say which of them is right and which is wrong, nor is it for me to say which of them should have its views prevail. One is the local education authority and the other is not. But at least there ought to be a bit of time in which they can exchange views with each other.
If there is a disposition on the part of the Government to resist an amendment as obvious and simple as this, it will be a manifestation of the fact that they really do not care about the thoughts and feelings of people and simply want in a dogmatic sort of way to impose their view without giving people the chance to talk about it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The principle of amendment No. 10, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, is similar to that of amendment No. 12, and I understand that the Government are prepared to agree to it. I shall therefore speak to my amendment fairly briefly. I shall explain why it is necessay, because it shows some of the difficulties.
The York city council decided in 1967, after consideration by a working party comprising all the teachers' organisations and all the political parties, to adopt a system of comprehensive education based on the middle school. That decision was virtually unanimous and caused no ideological split between any of the parties represented on the city council. But, because York is a tightly-contained county borough, with very little land for housing development, and most of the new housing development takes place in the overspill in what used to be called North Riding, no new money was available for school building for the new system.
The problem over the money has delayed the implementation of the scheme for all these years. When the new county council came into existence in 1973, there was a reconsideration, in the light of the changed circumstances, and, despite the resistance of two teachers' organisations to the middle school system, that system was again confirmed by an all-party decision both in the city council and in the county council.
We had decided, over a period of about 12 years, that comprehensive education in York was desirable and on the


middle school system, and there is no ideological divide on the issue. Section 13 notices had been served and advertised but they had not yet been approved by Labour's Secretary of State by the time of the election and, therefore, they fall under clause 1(4) of the Bill.
We are about the only local authority in the country which is pressed by the time limit in the Bill of 1 October 1979. As a result, the county has properly decided that it ought to ask for representations from the teachers' organisations and from the parents in order to decide what ought to be done in the changed circumstances.
If those consultations are to be conducted properly, the county will need more time than is allowed by the Bill as drafted. I have put down my amendment in the hope that the unanimity of view which has hitherto obtained in York about going comprehensive, and doing so on a sensible basis, will be allowed to continue and that there will be no forcing of the pace so that decisions are taken precipitately. I hope that the Government will accept my amendment so that we can have another couple of months to consider the matter and all the parents and the teachers' organisations can make their views felt. I am sure that in the end that would be to the benefit of all.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support these amendments because the Bill as drafted is defective in that it has few dates for implementation included in it. Admittedly there is a date in the provision giving some authorities the right to opt out, and I welcome the indication that the Government will accept a different date, but there is no date in the Bill for its implementation. I agree that that is not absolutely necessary in a Bill, which can normally be assumed to come into operation on Royal Assent, but we need to examine why an implementation date has been omitted in this case.
Some very doubtful activities have been going on over the Bill. Some local authorities have been anticipating the Bill and have been getting themselves involved in expenditure. There will be further questions about the legality of that expenditure, since it is now clear from Mr. Speaker's ruling that the Bill does

not authorise it. If the Bill did authorise such expenditure, there would need to be a money resolution, but it is being done under the 1944 Act, and for the time being the 1944 Act is affected by the 1976 Act. There must, therefore, be some doubt about the expenditure.
12 midnight
There has been a great deal of indecent haste on the Government's part. They might have said that they wanted the legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. We had the exchange between the usual channels earlier today. I was not a party to it, and I may be told that I am wrong, but my understanding was that the Government delayed the negotiations while they checked up with the other place to find out whether they could manipulate their Lordships into putting their rubber stamp on the Bill at the same time as they had originally promised so that the Government could still get Royal Assent for 26 July.
We on these Opposition Benches must take note of these facts. A Labour Government trying to get legislation through quickly would not get an automatic rubber stamp from the other place. Difficulties would arise and there would be many objections raised by their Lordships if a Bill were put before them two or three days later than they had expected. But, apparently, in less than an hour it became possible for the Government to fix things with their Lordships so that, even though the Bill will go before them some time late on Monday, the Government's original timetable will not be affected.
If the House of Lords is to scrutinise legislation, it should do so evenhandedly and not pick and choose which Government's legislation it will scrutinise and which it will not.
There is great uncertainty and hardship is being caused to children. It is very worrying to go right towards the end of the summer term and not know which will be the school one will go to for one's first year in secondary school. There is the question of getting uniforms, of going to look at the school, of starting to get to know the teachers and so on. The latter is particularly important if the school is a large one, and it can be very valuable to visit the school in the summer term. But, because of the Government's


enthusiasm to scrap all the plans so far made, those opportunities are being denied to the children.
The big advantage of putting in a date for implementation is that it would make clear that the Bill ought not to affect those authorities which have reached the stage, as in Bolton, where the changes were intended to take place this September and ought to involve only those authorities for future years. But by their indecent haste the Government show that they do not care very much for the children in such areas, and one suspects that they care little for the legality of the expenditure which has gone on. What is more, they care little for the House of Lords, since they have asked it so rapidly to guarantee delivery of its rubber stamp some time next week.
There is a strong case for including dates for the Bill's implementation. The date should certainly be into September, and we might well do much better to take the date offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), namely, 1 January 1980. I therefore support most of these amendments.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not think that anyone wants to delay the House much longer, but, since all these amendments would in one way or another give local authorities a little more time or a breathing space, it is proper to examine the indecent haste with which the Bill is being rushed through, with the complaisant support of the other place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) pointed out.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said with reference to indecent haste and the local education authority of Bolton. The Secretary of State made a sedentary interruption that I suspect he later regretted. He may care to interrupt later from a less sedentary position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North mentioned the indecent haste in Bolton and the money that is being spent. The legal position is that the Bolton education authority is subject to the 1944 Education Act, which has to be read as one with the 1976 Education Act. In making expenditure it is under a duty to have regard to the comprehensive prin-

ciple and implement the non-selective plans approved under section 13 and the procedures of the 1976 Act. If it spends money on an object contrary to those duties before it is legally entitled to do so, the district auditor might well have something to say, and I am sure that certain ratepayers of Bolton, conscious of their civic duties, might wish to draw that to the district auditor's attention. I hope that the matters raised in the debate will cause the councillors of Bolton and their legal advisers to think twice about their highly dubious activities. They may lead them to feel that it would be better to take a little longer and do what they want next year instead of this year.
An indication has been given that the Government have seen reason about clause 1(4). They have many friends on the North Yorkshire local education authority, and I understand that there are only three Labour members. The Government have been accommodating to North Yorkshire to that extent. They are accepting the first amendment, which gives us hope that they might also see reason on others.
I draw attention to amendment No. 17 and hope that we might press it to a Division. It says:
The Secretary of State shall not revoke any application under this subsection unless a resolution to make the application has been approved by more than half of the members of the local education authority, managers or governors concerned at a meeting convened for the purpose of passing such a resolution.
What we are presented with this evening is unprecedented in the history of legislation affecting local authorities. The Government expect the Bill to receive Royal Assent on 26 July. Their experience this evening, however, might indicate that there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. Even the House of Lords can become affronted when a constitutional principle is being breached. The Government are proposing that a Bill that receives Royal Assent on 26 July, when everyone is about to go on holiday, shall have effect with regard to decisions taken by statutory bodies by 3 or 4 September, when children start returning to school. It is to have effect in this way without any safeguarding provisions about the way in which the decision will be taken by the local education authorities, governors or managers concerned.
The amendment provides that at the very least the education authorities, governors or managers shall go through the proper motions, even if it means calling a few councillors back from holiday or having a special meeting in the middle of August of the governors or managers concerned. If the Government insist on breakneck-speed legislation of a kind completely unprecedented in the annals of education measures, at least we should ensure that half the membership of whatever body is in control of the school should have the option of taking a clear decision on the matter. Clearly, such bodies cannot take a decision now.
We have already had one amendment to the Bill. There is no saying what other amendments there will be during the rest of the Report stage or in another place. No local authority or board of governors or managers can properly meet and take a statutory decision of this kind until the Bill has been given Royal Assent. It would be utterly improper to do otherwise.
We feel that this amendment would be a safeguard. In fact, not many local authorities, governors or managers want to take advantage of the Bill. That may be so—we shall see what happens after Royal Assent. If it is so, it is an even greater reason for saying that the few authorities that want to take such a draconian step in such a short time and with such disruption to children, teachers and parents should have to go through the motions of making an application to revoke, passing a proper resolution to do so and passing it at a properly convened meeting.
There was a period when there was a lot of litigation against the Labour Party for not calling its meetings properly. This occurred in the previous constituency of the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) when he represented Newham, North-East. One hesitates to warn local education authorities about the effect of this Bill. It is possible that if a local education authority applies for revocation under clause 1(3), certain ratepayers may feel that the application has been made in improper circumstances, and they may attempt to take the authority to court. We may have another spate of education cases in the courts, as occurred in 1968 at Enfield and in 1978 at Tameside.
12.15 a.m.
Rushed legislation of this kind, which is designed simply to bail people out of election promises, is productive of such litigation. Amendment No. 17 seeks to ensure that it does not have that effect and that proper procedures are followed. Even though the Government may use dubious means in the House to rush through legislation, we should try to protect those in local government from the effects which the Bill might innocently have on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) drew attention to the potential effects which the Bill could have on local councillors—my hon. Friend is one of the few hon. Members who are still local councillors—if some of the fears expressed in this debate were borne out and if expenditure were improperly made and surchargeable on local councillors.
Amendment No. 17 is designed to ameliorate the rushed effect of the Bill on local councillors. Therefore, although I am pleased that the Secretary of State has seen reason and decided to help the local education authority in North Yorkshire, I hope that he will also see reason in respect of amendment No. 17 and will protect those members of local authorities who otherwise may find themselves surcharged or subject to litigation.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I wish to support the amendments in this group tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).
We heard a great deal from the Conservatives in the general election campaign about the freedom of the individual. The Bill is a piece of authoritarian legislation. Because it is being rushed through, it will deprive a large number of people of their rights.
We were also told how strongly the Conservatives believed in parental choice, and it was said that they would listen to the views of parents. One of the functions of parents—I am a parent with two children who attend State schools—is to be able to visit schools and to meet the staff. If one of my children moves from one stage to another in his education, before he does so I want to have the right to visit the school and make inquiries of the staff about my child's welfare. Unless


more time is given, there will be no opportunity for parents to take such a course. If the Bill becomes law at the end of the month, the schools will then be closed and there will be no opportunity for parents and teachers to have the kind of discussions to which I have referred. That will deprive parents of a legitimate right.
If a local education authority wishes to rush through a proposal, the least it should do is to call a meeting of the authority—even if it is August, when local councils do not meet—to approve the decision. The same applies in the case of a voluntary school, where the governors will make the decision. It should be compulsory for a meeting to be called before any action is taken by the Secretary of State. That is elementary democracy. I cannot imagine that the authorities would not do so, but I have been informed that at least one authority has no intention of calling such a meeting.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does my hon. Friend think that it would be interesting to know whether Cumbria county council, which seems to be intent on making a revocation under the Bill, intends to call a meeting in August? Perhaps the Chief Whip could be absolved from the tradition of not speaking in debates to tell the House whether the Cumbria county council intends to call a special meeting before allowing Kendal grammar school to operate under the 11-plus procedure.

Mr. Mitchell: I see no movement from the Government Front Bench. Apparently, the tradition of the House will continue. Of course, it is possible that the Chief Whip does not know the answer to the question.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is not another possible explanation that a deal has already been done and that local authorities are assuming that not only will the House of Lords be a rubber stamp but so will this place?

Mr. Mitchell: There have been many back-door consultations between Ministers at the Department of Education and Science and their Tory friends who are in charge of some of the more reactionary councils which will take advantage of the

opportunity. That makes it even more important that properly called meetings of local authorities should take place so that justice can be seen to be done and the opposite opinion can be expressed via the councillors.
There will be no opportunity between 26 July and 3 September for consultation with teachers in the affected areas. Some consultation will have taken place prior to the Bill passing into law, but once that has happened it is a different matter. Teachers will be widely dispersed during the summer holiday, and the only voice that they will have is via their elected councillors, provided there is the meeting specified in the amendment.
I support the amendments strongly and I hope that the Government, in replying to these points, will show the same accommodation as was shown to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon).

Dr. Boyson: The amendments are concerned with the date of operation. Amendment No. 12 states:
shall be repealed on 1st January 1980.
It is our intention that the Bill should become law on 26 July, so that authorities which have been forced by the previous Government, under duress, to put forward plans under the 1976 Act in which they do not believe should be able to revoke those schemes immediately. It is a wrecking amendment.
Giving the Bill an early start provides local education authorities with the earliest opportunity of deciding what they want to do—and that may include revoking schemes that were submitted under duress from the previous Government. We do not want any delay. The amendment would not give authorities the opportunity to safeguard their schools and run them as they wish.
Amendment No. 5 also provides for a delay of six months. We want applications from authorities that want to revoke immediately schemes put forward under duress so that they may leave their systems as they are or put forward alternative schemes with the agreement of people in their areas. That is another wrecking amendment.
Amendment No. 3 provides that the Bill should not apply to schemes implemented this year. The object of giving


the Bill priority is to deal with schemes coming forward under duress. If authorities wish their schemes to go forward, they may do so. No one is compelling authorities to do something that they do not wish to do. Some areas want to go ahead with their schemes, and the Bill will not compel them to change course. However, it will give local authorities time to revoke schemes that are going forward under duress.
Amendment No. 11 provides for another delay of six months and is a wrecking amendment in terms of how we see the intention of the Bill. I recommend my hon. Friends to reject all those amendments. Most of us are enjoying the debate, but I hope that those amendments will be withdrawn so that we may be saved the tedium of walking through the Lobbies at this time of night.
We are unclear what amendment No. 17 means, and we do not like it. The amendment says:
The Secretary of State shall not revoke any application under this subsection unless a resolution to make the application has been approved by more than half of the members of the local education authority, managers or governors concerned at a meeting convened for the purpose of passing such a resolution".
There can be many interpretations of that. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) knows that we spent much time in Committee on the interpretation of the word " concerned ". Amendment No. 17 could mean that more than one-half of the members of a local education authority and each set of voluntary school governors had to have a single joint meeting, that more than one-half of the members of a local education authority and each set of voluntary school governors had to have separate meetings or that more than one-half of the members of each body, in respect of their own proposals, must agree on the application. That would be wrecking amendment. I do not accuse the hon. Member of seeking to table a wrecking amendment, but we feel that that would be its effect.

Mr. Christopher Price: I accept that the drafting of the amendment may not be as felicitous as that which the Minister's draftsmen are so well known to be capable of, and I accept that there has been uncertainty about the meaning of the

word " concerned ". I hope that that will be settled on the next group of important amendments.
However, I gather from the Under-Secretary that the problem is a drafting rather than a basic problem. Will he therefore reconsider the matter so that it may be raised in another place and the principle of the amendment may be incorporated in the Bill?

12.30 a.m.

Dr. Boyson: My first comment was that it would be difficult to work out where the meetings would be. We shall make clear on the next set of amendments that the revocation must be made by those who put up the scheme. If it is a local authority scheme, it must be the local authority. If it is a voluntary body, it must be that body.
The amendment would bring in other people. That is not how it was done under the 1944 Act, and basically we are going back to that Act. The amendment would introduce a new principle which, apart from the fact that the amendment is not well drafted, we do not like and would reject.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that after Royal Assent each local authority which wants to carry out the revocation procedure will have to have a meeting and then have to make submissions?

Dr. Boyson: Each local authority that wants to make submissions can do so The words
managers or governors concerned
raise the question of the group of people involved. The position is quite clear under the 1944 Act, and I trust that we shall find it quite clear when we discuss the next group of amendments. The scheme must be revoked by the people who put it up. We want to revert to the 1944 position.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does the Minister interpret that as meaning that if the local education authority puts the scheme up it must hold a meeting at which all members are present, in order to revoke it, or does he think that it could be done at the discretion of the chairman of the education committee? That would not enable people to make representations to the councillors.

Dr. Boyson: It would depend on the rules under which the local authority worked. I should be astonished if the matter were left to a chairman's discretion, unless it had been resolved previously that he had that discretion. We cannot lay down how an authority revokes a scheme, on which night it holds the meeting, what is a quorum and so on. Local authorities have their own rules, and normal rules would apply.

Mr. Christopher Price: This is an important issue, which cannot be rushed. Just as it is Mr. Speaker's job to check whether Bills properly have or have not money resolutions attached to them, so it will be the job of the Department of Education and Science, when applications for revocation start coming in after Royal Assent, to check whether they are legally proper. In order to check the propriety of those applications, not from the local education committee but from the local education authority, what test will the Department apply?

Dr. Boyson: I think that we are pushing this a bit far. When the Government receive a letter from a local education authority, we presume that it has come from the authority with the agreement of the authority. Is the hon. Gentleman so suspicious that he thinks that every letter must be tested and fingerprinted to see whether it is done properly? The clerk to the authority is at risk unless it is, and he will not put himself at risk. I think that I have cleared the matter up, and that hon. Members are becoming finicky.
I appreciate that amendment No. 10 is intentionally helpful. The other amendments may be intended to be helpful as well, but, if so, they are misconceived. Amendment No. 10 is well conceived as well as helpful. As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, the North Yorkshire authority is the only authority involved. Under the amendment, instead of having to have rushed meetings before 1 October, it would have until 31 December. The hon. Gentleman put the matter very fairly. There are problems there, and the amendment would enable them to be properly sorted out. It would be to the advantage of that local authority and education in the area. I must advise my right hon. and hon. Friends

to accept amendment No. 10 and to reject, if they go to a vote, the other amendments.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I shall be brief because most of the main points I wish to cover have been covered adequately by my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), for York (Mr. Lyon), for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I wish that the same interest had been shown by Back Benchers on the Conservative side of the House on what is an important issue. Many words of wisdom have been spoken from the Opposition side of the House. Conservative Members who have been listening should have learnt a great deal.
These amendments are important because they emphasise the haste with which the Government have introduced the Bill into the House. This might explain some of the difficulties that arose this afternoon. Had the Government given more care to the Bill and had they not prepared and presented it so quickly, we might not have experienced the difficulties that occupied so much time earlier.
I am tempted to speak about the situation in Bolton at length. I would not have spoken on the same lines as my earlier point, which I am sure will receive a great deal of attention later. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West says, the Bill affects Bolton directly. His amendments would also have affected Bolton. The indications given to children in Bolton in January of the schools to which they would be going this September have been withdrawn. We are now near the end of the school term. Children leaving primary schools in Bolton at the end of this term still have no idea which secondary schools they will be attending.
That state of affairs has arisen because of the undue haste with which the Bill has been introduced and the way that the local authority has anticipated the passage of the Bill. This is a serious situation, which I am sure will receive attention later. It is a situation that I would hate to see happen elsewhere. The uncertainty and the difficulties caused in Bolton by the Bill and this clause are very damaging.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend say whether the authorities in Bolton have made any suggestions to parents about visiting schools or meeting teachers?

Mrs. Taylor: No proposals whatever have been made so far. No dates have even been given on which parents will be told of the allocations, let alone told of the arrangements for open day, parents visiting schools or anything of that nature. I share my hon. Friend's concern. It is not a matter of which the Conservative Party should be proud.
The issue is as simple as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said. These amendments basically try to ensure that when local authorities are considering their form of secondary education they get it right. It is important to realise that whenever local authorities have embarked on a comprehensive scheme there has always been a great deal of consultation with parents, teachers and educationists. If that amount of consultation is required to introduce a comprehensive scheme, it is reasonable to argue that the Bill should not go through so quickly and that time should be allowed for consultation if selective schemes are to be retained.
The basic problem for the Government side is that for all they say about not being anti-comprehensive and for all they say about not wishing to reintroduce the 11-plus, this is exactly what the Bill is designed to do. The Bill makes life easier for local education authorities that do not want to go comprehensive. It makes life more difficult for local education authorities that want to go comprehensive. [HON. MEMBERS: " Why?".]
I suggest that hon. Members who are asking " Why?" have not even read their own fairly short Bill. I refer hon. Members who wish to enlighten themselves to subsection (4) of clause 1. I would also refer them to subsection (1) of clause 1, removing the provisions in the 1976 Act which allowed development plans and section 13 notices to be considered in conjunction. This simplified and made easier the passage of comprehensive schemes into existence. The Bill makes it more difficult. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] The Secretary of State is making it more difficult, because the purpose of the Bill is to create more obstacles so that it will

take longer and be more difficult for local authorities to go comprehensive.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I find that very interesting. Would the hon. Lady explain in what way the Bill makes it more difficult for any local authority which wants to do so to go comprehensive?

Mrs. Taylor: In two ways. Under clause 1(4), if a local authority wishes to continue with its plans as at present, it has to take the initiative and elect to do so. The onus—[Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members find it so difficult. This is their intention. They have altered the onus, so that a local authority has to try harder and make more effort to go comprehensive.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The hon. Lady wants consultation.

Mrs. Taylor: This is after all the consultations. This relates to the schemes which are going through. The Bill makes things more difficult because it means that local authorities have to elect to go ahead with their schemes. It removes from the 1976 Act the provisions for section 13 notices to be considered along with development plans. I think that is clear.

Mr. Flannery: For clarification, will my hon. Friend tell us whether the gun has been jumped in Bolton? Has the 11-plus taken place? When did it take place? Have the teachers marked the papers? Have children taken the examination before the law has come into effect but still have no idea whether they have passed or failed and which schools they will go to? Is that the situation in Bolton?

Mrs. Taylor: The simple answer is " Yes "—

Mr. William Clark: " Yes " what?

Mrs. Taylor: " Yes " to all my hon. Friend's questions. [HON. MEMBERS: " All of them? "] I suggest that hon. Members should listen.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any limit to the extent to which hon. Members who dare not get up and say a word for themselves may go on barracking my hon. Friend, like the gallant gentlemen they are, from sedentary positions?

12.45 a.m.

Mrs. Taylor: It is a short Bill and its provisions are direct. However, it is clear that Conservative Back Benchers have not read the Bill and are not interested in it. None of them has been able to contribute to the debates. The interventions that they are making prove that they have no idea what the Bill is about.
The situation in Bolton is precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) outlined. The Bolton local education authority has anticipated the Bill. Since the Bill was introduced to the House, it has instigated emergency 11-plus procedures in Bolton. The children who are leaving primary schools this month do not know which secondary schools they will be attending in September. That is directly because of the Bill.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), said that he was willing to accept amendment No. 10. He complimented my hon. Friend the Member for York on his persuasion. I must compliment my hon. Friend, because anyone who makes the Government change their mind has obviously done an extremely good job. The Under-Secretary of State told my hon. Friend that he agreed that if York had extra time to consider its proposals it would have a better chance of arriving at the right answer and getting the right sort of secondary education. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is so much against all the other amendments, which are based on consultation and ensuring that arrangements are right in local areas.
The confusion that arose on amendment No. 17 is difficult to understand. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should be afraid of ensuring that each local authority affected has a special meeting to consider the problem. It may be, as he suggested, that there are drafting problems with the amendment. However, I ask him to reconsider it. If he cannot accept it technically, I ask him to accept its spirit.
The Government have given themselves away a great deal during the debates. It is obvious that their intention is merely to help local authorities that wish to

retain the selective system and reintroduce the 11-plus examination, although that is something that they always say they do not want to do. It would be in the interests of the children who will be affected and in the interests of fair play, consultation and the House if the Government were to reconsider their position on the amendments, especially amendment No. 17.

Mr. Mikardo: A short while ago the Under-Secretary of State suggested that all the amendments other than No. 10 should be withdrawn to avoid the tedium of going through the Lobbies. That is one of the most staggering remarks that I have ever heard in all the years that I have been in the House.

Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friend wants to read the black papers.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman and my heart bleeds for him. If he finds going through the Lobbies a source of tedium and an occasion for tedium, he must spend many boring hours in the House.

Mr. Kinnock: He will spend many more such hours.

Mr. Mikardo: I enjoy Divisions. A Division gives me an opportunity to puff my pipe, to meet some friends whom I might miss during the day and to exchange a few jolly quips with one or two hon. Members. If I ask, as I wish to do, for the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, it is not for the reason that the hon. Gentleman gave but only because the amendment that he has accepted is identical to my own. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Christopher Price: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 2, leave out ' managers or governors concerned '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can discuss the following amendments:
No. 4, in page 2, line 2, leave out ' concerned' and insert:
which originated the proposals '.
No. 8, in line 6, leave out ' managers or governors concerned '.
No. 9, in line 6, leave out ' concerned ' and insert:
' which originated the proposals '.
No. 15, in line 11, at end add:
(4E) No election by managers or governors under subsection (4) above shall have effect, if a local education authority responsible for the support of pupils in the schools to which proposals under subsection (4) above applies, make an objection to such election before 1st November 1979.'.
No. 16, in line 11, at end insert:
'(4A) In the event of managers or governors applying for revocation under subsection (3) above without the agreement of the local education authority, the Secretary of State shall not confirm the application.'

Mr. Price: This group of amendments concerns what was probably the most drawn-out debate we had in Committee. It was on this point that the Under-Secretary gave a pledge that he would look at the matter and give us his considered views. The amendments concern the relationship in a local education authority between the voluntary schools and the county schools.
Because of the semi-pledge that the Under-Secretary gave in the debate on the last set of amendments about the meaning of the word " concerned "—on which I hope he will enlarge in his reply—I do not want to press amendments Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 9. However, amendment No. 16 is particularly important, safeguarding the position of the local education authority as against a maverick voluntary school which might want to wreck a comprehensive scheme. I and a number of my hon. Friends would want to press the amendment to a Division.
In subsections (3) and (4) the phrase is used: the local education authority, managers or governors concerned ".
The advice we received from the Under-Secretary in Committee was that the meaning of " concerned " was controlled by subsection (2) of section 13 of the 1976 Act. The Minister said that the result was that only a local education authority could apply to revoke a section 13 notice submitted by a local education authority and only a body of managers or governors could apply to revoke a section 13 notice submitted by a body of managers or governors. There could not be any cross-revocation between the two. This

was a flaw which the hon. Gentleman said existed in my amendment No. 17, which was copied from the words in the Bill.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. However, I require more assurance. As I said in Committee, although the hon. Gentleman and his advisers may say that that is what the words mean—and his advisers, although they are worthy folk, have not always been right about these matters—on the face of it it appears to be possible, given this wording, where a local education authority has issued a section 13 notice to cease to maintain a voluntary school, for an application to revoke the section 13 notice to be made not only by the local education authority but by the managing body, on the ground that the managing body was as much concerned, in the ordinary meaning of the word " concerned ", by the section 13 notice as was the local education authority.
I should appreciate it if the Minister would do his best to convince me that the ordinary meaning of the word " concerned " could not be misused. I do not doubt that that is what he thinks it means and that that is what his legal advisers think it means. It is just that there are a number of voluntary aided schools, not controlled by the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, with completely maverick boards of governors who might want to do a try-on in this case and persuade a court that it meant other than that which the Minister said it meant. I shall need convincing on that issue, but I am ready and willing to be convinced if the hon. Gentleman can do it.
The other issue, with which amendment No. 16 is concerned, is very much more fundamental and important, and that is why I think that if the Minister does not give way we should press the matter to a Division. What subsection (3) means is that if a local education authority decided that it wanted not to revoke but to keep a comprehensive system intact—as it has been admitted from the Government Front Bench many local education authorities wish to do—just one voluntary school within that local education authority could frustrate the wishes of the democratically elected people on the local authority. By applying to revoke under the Bill, one school could force the local


authority, against its wishes, to reintroduce an 11-plus examination for every primary school within that authority, because of the structure of the relationship between voluntary schools and county schools within the 1944 Act.
I put it to the Minister that this is a complete departure from all previous education legislation. On every occasion when the House has passed legislation dealing with education which concerns local education authorities and voluntary bodies, we have insisted on consultative procedures between the two and made it clear that managers and governors are part of the general system and cannot operate completely independently as though the local education authorities, which pay 100 per cent. of their running expenditure, and as though the public purse, which now pays 80 per cent. of the capital expenditure and repair costs. simply do not exist and they are, as it were, an estate of the realm with independent powers.
It was made clear in the 1944 Act that managers and governors of schools could not issue section 13 notices until they had consulted the local education authority concerned, and that if they wished to build a new school, for instance, they could not issue those notices unless they had got the local education authority to place that school in a building programme.
1 a.m.
On the 1976 Act, once again after exhaustive discussions with the voluntary bodies it was finally agreed that plans for reorganisation should be submitted by local education authorities, but transmitted—that is, taken from the voluntary bodies and sent on to the Secretary of State—in the case of the voluntary schools. This linkage between the submission and transmission of plans, the joint planning of secondary school procedures and the issuing of section 13 notices was agreed to by all the voluntary bodies with the enthusiastic support of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. It has become an established procedure within English educational law.
The Government are now saying for the first time ever that this tradition of linkage is to go and that voluntary bodies

will be able, if they wish, to frustrate their local education authorities. I am saying not that it is particularly likely that this will happen but that we should pass legislation in the well-tried traditional form. If we do not, we shall give rise to complete absurdities. It would be an absurdity if one voluntary school—from any of the schools in the long list that the Under-Secretary gave us—was able to do that.
The Under-Secretary could give me some reassurance in this matter if he were to say from the Dispatch Box that he will not agree to any revocation by a local education authority without there being unanimity in that authority and between the authority and the managers and governors concerned. That was the principle of the 1976 Act in going comprehensive, and it ought to be the principle in reverting to the 11-plus, if that is what the Under-Secretary insists on doing.
This matter is important. I do not say that because we on the Labour Benches have anything against the broad mass of voluntary schools. They perform an essential function in our education system. We support the dual system as much as anyone does. However, in recent years a number of voluntary schools have emerged which have set out to frustrate the wishes of the electorate. King Edward VI School, Southampton was one and there have been a number of such schools in the area of the Inner London Education Authority. One that was mentioned in Committee was the Mary Datchelor school in South London near my constituency. It preferred to close and remove from the public the facilities that had been left to the poor children in London by their benefactors 100 years ago rather than allow the school to go comprehensive.
Given that there are such odd schools, the aim of this set of amendments is to get from the Minister a pledge that he will not allow such a situation to arise. Unless that pledge is forthcoming, I and my hon. Friends will feel like pressing the amendment to a Division.

Dr. Boyson: We had quite a long discussion on this matter in Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know the amount of work and study devoted to it by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West


(Mr. Price). We spent more than an hour on the meaning of the word " concerned " and about who could revoke. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for centring his attention on amendment No. 16. I should like to do the same, because in many ways that is the crux of the issue.
The purpose of drafting the Bill in this way was to restore the position to what it was up to 1976—that is to say, before the passage of the Labour measure of that year. Obviously, where a local authority wishes to change its schools, it gives its section 13 notice. It does so, in fact, under section 13(1), and the voluntary school does it under section 13(2). Usually they run in harness, but it is not necessary for them to do so for this purpose. I take the point as to the change of wording and about how the schemes came into being, but even in 1976 it was a question of consultation. I appreciate that the scheme came through the local authority.
The only way in which, in the ultimate, a local authority could intervene—if I may use that phrase—with the voluntary body would be by a " cease to maintain " notice. This was one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West about who could revoke on the question of a " cease to maintain " notice.
When the hon. Gentleman raised the matter in Committee, I promised to look into the legal drafting. I am not a lawyer but I am assured by the legal advisers that the only people who could revoke a " cease to maintain " notice would be the local authority which had issued it. It could not be revoked by the voluntary school governors. That was the specific question put to me by the hon. Gentleman, and the specific reply is that it could be revoked under the wording of the Bill only by the local authority which had issued the " cease to maintain " notice. A voluntary school could not change its mind after such a notice had been issued.
I point out, in relation to amendment No. 16, that we are trying to restore the position to what it was up to 1976. Clause 1(3) states that
the Secretary of State may, on the application of the local education authority, managers or governors concerned, revoke the approval.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to give an assurance that, if the local authority

did not want revocation and the voluntary body wanted revocation, we would follow through the wishes of the local authority. I could not give that assurance tonight from the Dispatch Box.
The Bill makes perfectly clear that either the local authority with the voluntary body, or the local authority itself or the voluntary body itself, could ask for revocation, but the wording here is " may, on the application ", and it would have to be considered by the Secretary of State. If a voluntary body wished to revoke and the local authority did not wish to revoke, the decision whether revocation was allowed would lie with the Secretary of State. But I could not give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman would like to have on that. The Secretary of State would have to consider the circumstances which existed at the time in question.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Minister at least give the assurance that, if that position arose, the Secretary of State would give the due weight which previous Secretaries of State have always given to the wishes of the local education authority in this regard?

Dr. Boyson: I am not totally aware what " due weight " means in this case. All I can say is that the Secretary of State, in carrying out the provisions of the measure, would do so in terms of the various traditions and precedents. That is as far as one could go upon it. Without knowing local circumstances, one could not say more than that.
The wording of amendment No. 16 is:
In the event of managers or governors applying for revocation under subsection (3) above without the agreement of the local education authority, the Secretary of State shall not confirm the application.
The Government could not accept that because it would change the situation further against the voluntary body.
I accept that in these days 85 per cent. of the building costs and 100 per cent. of the running costs are covered by national funds and by the local authority respectively, but in many cases the schools were built by the voluntary bodies with their own funds, and the great tradition of the balance between county schools and voluntary schools is accepted on both sides of the House.
To accept the amendment would go much further in giving the local education authority control over a voluntary body than did even the 1976 Act. That is certainly not our wish. I realise that everyone in the country is not reasonable all the time, but the idea has always been that the local authority and the voluntary body negotiate as free individuals. If the local authority knew that it could compel the voluntary body to do what it wanted, there would no longer be free negotiation. It is on that basis that we cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Christopher Price: I agree that one wants to maintain the balance of the dual system as well as possible, but would not the hon. Gentleman at least agree that a body of managers managing a voluntary school, by revoking on their own when the local education authority did not revoke, would upset the balance because it would force the LEA to reintroduce an 11-plus in every primary school so that each primary school could have the opportunity to compete for that one selective school that was left? In such a case, surely the balance is being thrown far too far in favour of the voluntary body and against the democratically elected LEA.

Dr. Boyson: Apart from the comment at the end of that intervention, I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. But one must point out how this has arisen. A voluntary body can now revoke against the wishes of the LEA only because the 1976 Act, in our view, was wrong. It was that Act which forced an area to go comprehensive, including voluntary schools which did not want to go comprehensive. The situation is a relic of the 1976 Act. If it had not been for that Act, we would not have been landed with this problem. We all have to share the problem now, but it was created by the Labour Government.
There is little else I can say on the subject. I appreciate the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I know the great amount of research and work that he has done. But there is the balance between the voluntary schools and the county schools, and it is important to keep that balance right. We feel that if a voluntary body negotiates freely with the local authority, both of them being free to act, we are more likely to get co-

operation and the right decision than if one side can call the tune at any point. I would not like a situation in which power would go to the local authority over the voluntary body, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist amendment No. 16.

Mr. Christopher Price: Reluctantly, on the meaning of the word " concerned ", I accept what the Under-Secretary of State has said, but only because I feel that words spoken in this Chamber add a little to the meaning of the words interpreted by the courts, although I know that they are not meant to do so. But people will hear of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that it will deter any body of managers or governors who might be inclined to test this matter.
Secondly, however, the hon. Gentleman did not satisfy me in any way. I do not feel that he has really understood the ramifications of the possibilties if a voluntary school insists on its rights. If the Minister felt that our amendment No. 16 went too far, he could have instituted discussions with the voluntary bodies, as the Labour Government did on both the 1976 Act and the 1979 Bill, over an issue of this sort.
Simply to leave the situation as it is gives too much power to a single voluntary body, especially a non-church body, over the whole organisation of secondary education in an area, and when we reach amendment No. 16 my instinct will be to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in support of it.
In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 3, leave out " where " and insert " in the case of ".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): It will be convenient to consider at the same time amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 3, leave out from " applies " to " the " in line 5.

Mr. Price: We need not delay too long on this question, but it is indicative of the ramifications of the clause. I am not sure that the matter is drafted entirely


correctly, but the Minister will tell me if it is not.
The aim of these amendments is to widen subsection (4). As the Bill stands, only local education authorities and governing bodies which have reached the point of actually issuing section 13 notices have the right to use the election procedure set out in subsection (4), with the later date which we are about to agree to put into the Bill, and carry on with comprehensive education as though the 1976 Act still existed although it is to be repealed, if the Bill is passed, on or about the 26th of this month.
The aim of the amendments is to widen the category of local education authorities and bodies of governors and managers which can take advantage of the election procedure which, in all the unsatisfactory circumstances of the Bill, we see not as a bright light but as at least a vaguely hopeful glimmer, and as something which will be helpful, for example, to North Yorkshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) pointed out.
The Under-Secretary has been kind enough to submit to me a third list of schools. Not having been in the Standing Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not know the saga of the lists. First, the hon. Gentleman said that we could not have any lists of schools and he would not tell us anything. Then, when this appeared to be discourteous to the Committee, he gave us one list and said we could have that. Initially, he said that he would read it but we could not have it. Then he had it photocopied, with the kind help of the Whip now on the Front Bench, and the Committee was allowed to have list No. 1. Then, between that sitting of the Committee and the next, it emerged that the hon. Gentleman had another list of schools, and we were allowed to have that list also.
Those were the two lists of schools to which subsections (3) and (4) as at present drafted apply, and it is not to those lists that I now refer.
There are many authorities which have started the consultative procedures under the 1976 Act and have submitted and transmitted schemes to the Minister but have not got as far as issuing section 13 notices. The Under-Secretary of State

submitted to me a considerable list of the areas concerned. It runs from Avon, Barnet, Berkshire, Bexley, Birmingham, Bromley, Buckinghamshire, through Calderdale, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon, Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hereford, Kent, Kingston upon Thames, Kirklees, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, Redbridge, Shropshire, Sutton, Tameside, Trafford, Walsall, Warwickshire, and again Kirklees, Birmingham, Sutton, North Yorkshire, Bromley, Calder-dale, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Enfield and North Yorkshire. It is a long list of schools where local education authorities have begun the procedures under the 1976 Act.
The Government's aim is to allow the procedures already started to lapse. If local education authorities wish to continue to go comprehensive, that will happen under pre-1976 section 13 procedures rather than under the 1976 Act. The great advantage of the 1976 Act procedures is that consultation and co-operation between local education authorities and governors and managers are enforced through the transmission and submission of schemes that need to be treated as section 13 submissions.
The Bill will limit the linkage procedures to authorities that have already issued the section 13 notices, and that is an arbitrary line to draw. We do not know the full list. Some authorities might decide to pin lists on the doors of schools before 26 July and therefore come into the election category under clause 1(4).
It would be far more convenient if local education authorities and governors and managers of schools did not have to go back to square one and start again. They could use the 1976 Act procedures as set out in clause 1(4) in the same way as the section 13 notices.
The amendment is minor and will not affect local education authorities that do not want to use it. The election procedure is a triggering mechanism and takes place only if a local education authority does something. It would be useful for authorities that had co-operated with the governors and managers of voluntary schools and wanted to keep the linkage and co-operation under the transmission and submission procedures and also wanted the schemes already


submitted to be automatically considered, such as North Yorkshire.
It is 23 minutes past 1 o'clock. The debate began with a difference of opinion on legal matters, but perhaps it can draw to a gentle close in an atmosphere of sweetness and light. I hope that the amendment can be at least smiled on by the Under-Secretary of State. If it is not properly drafted, it could be tidied up in the other place, which has many educational experts, such as Lord Alexander.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend may not realise that the deal made earlier this evening allows the other place to act merely as a rubber stamp. It will not give the Bill the scrutiny that it should.

Mr. Price: It would be a pity if that were true, but at this stage of the evening I am giving the Under-Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt. Our worst fears may be fulfilled. It would be a shoddy deal if the House of Lords had signed on the dotted line for the umpteenth time that it would not go against the Tory Government. I prefer not to believe these stories.
It would be sensible for the Under-Secretary to give a bland and mild reply to the amendment, so that when my hon. Friends and I consult our educational experts in another place we can get them to put down amendments, which may be smiled upon, to ensure that the effect of clause 1(4) can be very much wider than it is at present.

Dr. Boyson: It is now 1.26 a.m. and time is moving on. I shall try to make my reply bland and mild, as this is not one of the most contentious amendments. It would affect a certain number of schools.
The Government feel that there must be some point of cut-off where we return to the previous procedure. There could be argument about where that cut-off point should be. We feel that it is much tidier to have that cut-off point where local authorities have issued the section 13 notices than to have another body of local education authorities involved

similarly on that election procedure. Those that have issued section 13 notices have gone a long way, and it is important that a decision be made about where they stand as soon as possible.
However, in the case that the hon. Member mentioned it has gone only as far as the proposals, and, therefore, we do not feel that we can accept the amendment. It is not a matter of life and death, but we feel that there must be a cut-off point somewhere and that that point should be with those who have issued their section 13 notices. That is why the Bill was drafted along those lines—to make sure that we had a clean measure with a clean cut-off point. I ask my lion. Friends to reject the amendment.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am glad that the Under-Secretary said that this did not really matter to the Government—

Dr. Boyson: I did not say that. I said that it was not a matter of life and death.

Mr. Price: I see. It is not a matter of life and death, even at this time of the morning. Perhaps I interpreted the Under-Secretary's reply wrongly. I do not know what " life and death " means to this Government. I still feel that the amendment would have provided a sensible way to proceed, and I do not believe that the Government's solution is tidier. However, in the circumstances, I shall not seek to divide the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.30 a.m.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 2, line 11, leave out " 1st October " and insert " 31st December ".—[Mr. Christopher Price.]

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 2, line 11, at end insert—
'(4A) In the event of managers or governors applying for revocation under subsection (3) above without the agreement of the local education authority, the Secretary of State shall not confirm the application.'.—[Mr. Christopher Price.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 214.

Division No. 56]
AYES
[1.31 a.m.


Adams, Allen
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Beith, A. J.
Campbell, Ian
Cohen, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Canavan, Dennis
Cunliffe, Lawrence




Davis, Terry (B rm'ham, Stechford)
Magee, Bryan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dixon, Donald
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morton, Barry
Tinn, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parry, Robert
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael


Holland, Stuart (L'belh, Vauchall)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Kinnock, Neil
Race, Reg
Woolmer, Kenneth


McCartney, Hugh
Richardson, Miss Jo
Young, David (Bolton East)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)



McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


McMahon, Andrew
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Bob Cryer and


McNally, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Kevin McNamara


McWilliam, John






NOES


Adley, Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Alexander, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan
Murphy, Christopher


Ancram, Michael
Goodhart, Philip
Myles, David


Arnold, Tom
Gorst, John
Neale, Gerrard


Aspinwall, Jack
Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neubert, Michael


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Tony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gummer, John Selwyn
Normanton, Tom


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hampson, Dr Keith
Osborn, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Blackburn, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hawksley, Warren
Parris, Matthew


Bowden, Andrew
Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Henderson, Barry
Patten, John (Oxford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Percival, Sir Ian


Brinton, Tim
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pink, R. Bonner


Brittan, Leon
Hooson, Tom
Pollock, Alexander


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Porter, George


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Timothy


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Renton, Tim


Butcher, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Butler, Hon Adam
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rost, Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lang, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Channon, Paul
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Chapman, Sydney
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Churchill, W. S.
Lee, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Clegg, Walter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Colvin, Michael
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Corrie, John
Macfarlane, Nell
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
MacGregor, John
Speller, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Major, John
Squire, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Marland, Paul
Stainton, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dover, Denshore
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mates, Michael
Stevens, Martin


Durant, Tony
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dykes, Hugh
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Eggar, Timothy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Elliott, Sir William
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mayhew, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mellor, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Peter (west Devon)
Thompson, Donald


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Monro, Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Moore, John
Trippler, David







Trotter, Neville
Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Watson, John
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Waddington, David
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wheeler, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wickenden, Keith
Mr. John Wakeham


Waller, Gary
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

CITATION, CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENT

Mr. Kinnock: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 12 at end insert—
'(1A) Nothing in this Act shall affect schemes in which admission of pupils is not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude and which are already approved under section 13, except that local education authorities, school managers or governors may elect that such schemes be treated as though they are proposals to which subsection (4) of section 1 of this Act applies.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 12 at end insert—
'(1A) Nothing in this Act shall affect schemes in which admission of pupils is not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude and which are already implemented under section 13 of the Education Act 1974.'.

Mr. Kinnock: The amendments have a connected purpose, but a separate emphasis. Amendment No. 18 relates to schemes that have been approved under section 13, but not implemented. We seek to ensure that such schemes—particularly one in which we have a special interest—are proposals to which the right of election will be extended. The amendment is a test of the Government's professed attitude on comprehensive schooling.
There has been a comprehensive scheme in the Tameside education authority for four years. The scheme was accepted by the then Secretary of State for Education and Science in November 1975 and it has been one of the most illustrious cases fought in politics and through the courts that have affected our education system. Of course, the victims of all the vacillations and changes of policy have been the children of Tameside and their parents.
We are trying to ensure that the proposals that were acceptable under the section 13 procedure in 1975 will be upheld and that the Secretary of State will

adopt his most enlightened attitude and permit the Tameside authority to make application before the new date of 31 December—arrived at through the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the generosity of the Government—for the scheme to go ahead.
I realise that the amendment may pose certain difficulties for the Government, not only because of their reservations about such matters, but because of the political associations of Tameside. It has been held that because the councillors opposed comprehensive reorganisation and made that a premier part of their election campaign, that was acceptable evidence that the opinion of the people of Tameside was contrary to non-selective education and progress towards comprehensive reorganisation. Consequently, that reorganisation did not go ahead. But politics and the political balance in Tameside have changed. The argument has changed. In the subsequent elections the Labour Party won a majority there and is now in control of the local education authority.
1.45 a.m.
No one could say that we secured that majority by stealth or without the understanding of the people that the major issue remained the reorganisation of education. The evidence is to be found not simply in the Labour Party's manifesto, declarations and statements by candidates in the local press and the material delivered to each house in Tameside. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from the Conservative declarations in May:
Vote Conservative. Tameside is better with the Conservatives ".
[HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear.] It is apparent that the people of Tameside did not agree with those Conservative Members who cheer, because they kicked out the Tories. The declarations continued:
Buy your own council house … Improve older property … £5 million is to be spent on planned maintenance … No comprehensive education … Better results … Smaller classes … Freedom of parental choice … Fair treatment for all abilities 


and so on. There was all the material of which we have come to hear so much from the Tories, but it did not convince the people of Tameside, because they ejected the Tories.
There is now a Labour majority in Tameside. If it can once be held that the people of Tameside signified their views on comprehensive reorganisation by electing a Tory majority that was against that reorganisation, all logic and justice suggest that by the same token, after a few years' more experience of comprehensive education, the people of Tameside have changed their minds. As the Prime Minister might say, there is a mandate for the adoption of the comprehensive proposals.
Now we hit a further difficulty. With great understanding, the Secretary of State wrote to the Tameside metropolitan borough on 30 May and generously told it:
We understand that the education committee will be discussing this matter"—
reorganisation—
on 5th June, and the Secretary of State wishes to place on record his view of the situation, in the belief that this will be helpful to the authority in deciding what course to follow.
That was done with complete propriety, and I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's motives. Nobody can can quarrel with what was done.
However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman held that because of the time that had elapsed since the original acceptance of the proposals it could no longer be accepted that they were appropriate for the area. It is difficult to understand why he reached that decision. It could not have been on demographic grounds, because the children involved—whether they are now in the third or fourth year in the secondary schools or are in the primary schools—are the same. The only children not involved are those who have already left school and who would have been affected, directly or indirectly, by the 1975 proposals, had they been implemented as intended in 1976. Allowing for all the accidents of fate, we can see that the parents of those children are almost entirely the same. Therefore, there are no solid demographic grounds for suggesting that the picture has changed significantly.
Are there educational grounds? I do not want to repeat what was said earlier

in the debate, but the fact is that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who has taken a close interest in the affairs of Tameside, has demonstrated by reference to A-level and O-level results that the curriculum of the grammar schools is inordinately restricted in this age of advanced technology, fuel technology and industry—and this in, of all places, Manchester. There is a gross absence of choices at A-level in foreign languages such as Italian, Spanish and Russian.
There is not adequate provision in the present system for the diversity of curriculum demanded in the modern secondary school. It was not on educational grounds that the Secretary of State could maintain that the present scheme in Tameside was superior to that offered as a result of the 1975 proposals for re-organisation. The only reason was either the legalistic one of interpreting that there was some kind of outdatedness over a four-year period or a political one that hoped to perpetuate the decision of the now defunct Tory majority in Tameside. Whichever it was, it is unfair that the future of the children and the choice of the parents of Tameside should be affected.
The Minister brought out the comparison between Tameside and Manchester. On further examination of the results of Manchester and Tameside, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will discover that he made selective use of statistics.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman referred to part of a letter I wrote to the Tameside authority. I set out in that letter the reason for my view, which he has not mentioned, that the approval given in it in the application of 1975 specifically related to the reorganisation of the schools and the date in September 1976. After that date was passed, the local education authority resolved not to go ahead with those proposals. That led me to my view that those proposals were now spent and the right attitude for the local authority to take, if it wished to reorganise, was to start new section 13 procedures.

Mr. Kinnock: I understand that. It is a most helpful intervention. Whether it was intended as such, I do not know. It must be the most perverse use of logic


for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that because a Tory majority rejected a Labour scheme, the same force of political and democratic logic should not require that the new Labour majority in the metropolitan borough of Tameside should be able to take up the scheme that it last proposed in 1975 and was to have introduced in 1976.
We are still arguing, if we take the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously, around a refined political point that an objective act of the Tory majority rejected the 1975 proposals. I will refresh his memory. After the elections of the spring of that year, in panic and in great haste and using all the force of the Acts at the disposal of a local authority with a Tory majority, carefully thought-out and tortuously prepared proposals for secondary reorganisation in Tameside were destroyed by July of that year. I would prefer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that they were not so much destroyed as put into political cold storage.
The point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider is not whether a Tory majority has thrown out Labour proposals but whether the children and parents who would have been affected by these 1975–76 proposals are substantially the same children and parents. He knows that even allowing for normal demographic changes and normal geographical movements they are overwhelmingly and substantially the same parents and children.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider that further. If reasonability is the motivation for this decision and sending the letter of 30 May to Tameside, reason triumphs over his decision. That reason is that I appeal to the Secretary of State—it cannot fall on deaf ears, in view of his general approach to these matters—to consider the children and parents.
As for the comparative results of Tameside and Manchester, I asked the Under-Secretary not to be too selective in his statistics. The Tameside statistics were enormously fattened by the class sizes, and the number of entrants into examinations. In some examinations—Latin is a case in point, but there were others—there was one candidate. The

result of his success was a 100 per cent. pass rate. [HON. MEMBERS: " Very good. I have a grammar school education to thank for that deduction.

Dr. Boyson: The figures that I quoted were not 100 per cent. or 5 per cent., which are dependent entirely on how many sit. The comparison, which was made by R. W. Baldwin, a statistician, was between the 16-plus and 18-plus population in Trafford and Manchester. It showed that the results in Tameside in schools of both types were much higher than those in Manchester. I will send copies of those results to any hon. Member who wants them. Then a debate might be worth while. The figures were for percentage passes of the whole age group.

Mr. Kinnock: I still think that there are substantial grounds for believing that there was a distorted weighting in the use of those statistics. It certainly does not meet two other important points. [Interruption.] I hope that there will be as much interest when we next discuss these matters more thoroughly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are your friends?"] Perhaps my hon. Friends regard the conclusion of this debate in a more relaxed way than do Tory Members. That accounts for their preoccupation with other House matters, and with their constituency mail, which is obviously what they are doing now.
The criteria employed in this exercise were not sufficiently objective. This illustrates a danger in the other proposals of the Under-Secretary—we have not determined whether they are the proposals of the Secretary of State—about the publication of league tables. However exact and objective the work of statisticians in producing league tables of academic results, there will be much tortuous debate—some well-informed, some ill-informed—which will go on ad nauseam, with no benefit to the children directly concerned.
This debate is of great benefit. It is exposing the fact that there has been and is nothing but political motivation in informing Tameside that it cannot go ahead with the 1975 scheme. This has serious implications, not just for Tameside but for the House and the Exchequer. What has happened there is a conse-


quence of the 1975 proposals. This is the reason that the amendment asks for Tameside to be allowed the privilege of making an election. It has proposals which previously satisfied the Secretary of State and in the last Government would probably have satisfied the judgment and criteria of the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State. She accepted similar schemes.
Hyde boys' grammar school has had girls' toilets installed for £160,000. I cast no reflection on the boys in the school, so I presume that they have not used those toilets. The girls' school has craft provision worth about £250,000 which is not being used. As a consequence of the 1975 proposals, teachers were regraded by contract. Of course, those proposals were smashed up by the Tories in Tameside in 1976. The teachers never carried out their duties. I do not object to teachers receiving higher pay, but it would be nice if they could move to the jobs that they were intended to undertake in return for that pay. There is a vice-principal at a girls' college appointed specifically to look after girls' social problems. She has had to find a new job because the school at which she was employed had only boys.
2 am
So the tale continues. It will continue for as long as the Secretary of State allows Tameside to retain its present system in defiance of the section 13 permission or acceptance that was awarded to it in 1975. Despite Tameside being a hotbed and a sort of virility symbol, or so it appears from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter of 30 May, I hope that further consideration will take place. I hope that there will be a generous and reasonable response to the approaches of the local education authority from Tameside. I hope that it will be permitted to elect before 31 December so that it may continue with its proposals.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not reconsider and respond reasonably, the proposals will be resubmitted. If the usual criteria are exercised, there cannot be any reason to reject the proposals. I am willing to bet my salary, improved as it has been, against the right hon. and learned Gentleman's salary, improved as that has been, that he, his successor or his successor's succes-

sor will accept the proposals of Tameside, and that those proposals will not differ one jot from those that he is now advising cannot be accepted. For his own sake, his own credibility and his own consistency, I ask him to reconsider.
Amendment No. 21 is much simpler, and the House will be glad to know that it requires rather less argument. It is more self-evident and self-exlanatory. All it seeks—I hope that the Government will accept it on this basis—is a guarantee that the areas that now have the benefit of non-selective systems will not be affected by the Bill.
I know that we have had various half-reassurances. Against the reassurances of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State—we recognise them both as honourable, that their word is binding and that their reassurances are meant—there must be set the fact that outside this place the strong impression has been given that if there were an opportunity to dismantle non-selective systems it would be grasped eagerly by certain elements within the Conservative Party.
The impression to which I have referred has certainly been created by the Under-Secretary of State outside this place, if not so frequently by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It has been taken up by many of their right hon. and hon. Friends and it has been recognised, as far as we can ascertain, by the majority of the adult population of the United Kingdom.
It was because of the period over which previous Conservative Governments presided and the foresight and wisdom of certain Conservative local education authorities in the 1950s and early 1960s that Conservative LEAs and Governments contributed significantly towards the progress away from selective education. I am the first to give them credit for that. However, there is a backlash in the Tory Party. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman are acutely aware of that. There are elements in their party that want to take a kind of nostalgic vengeance on the non-selective system. They are prepared to blame the comprehensive schools for every possible social upheaval, evil and delinquency. The records, the PA copy and the statements and speeches speak for themselves.


I am not accusing any member of the Government Front Bench of being so melodramatic in his attitude towards the selective system.
Because the Bill will enable local education authorities to dismantle schemes for comprehensive education which are at the point of implementation, or which have been partially implemented, the Minister will acknowledge that our distrust is well founded. It can only be laid to rest by the Government accepting an amendment which will enshrine in this measure the words set out in amendment No. 21. If such an amendment is inserted, it will be the significant guarantee which we require. More important than our requirement for guarantee is the security, the stability—the period of calm—for which secondary education, the parents of secondary schoolchildren and the parents of primary schoolchildren who want the best for their children are longing.
It would have been more productive if the Government had introduced a Bill to assist that desire for stability. Instead they have presented a destabilising Bill. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment and remove the fear, regret and indeterminacy from the education debate and from the minds of the affected parents.

Dr. Boyson: I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 18 and 21. My right hon. and learned Friend has spoken about amendment No. 18. In so far as this amendment concerns Tameside, my right hon. and learned Friend has said that he considers the original order concerning Tameside—which was never implemented—as being spent, following the change of control in that area. My right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to meet the local authority there. All that is required, if it wishes to continue with the same scheme, is for it to put forward new section 13 notices.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Boyson: No.
If amendment No. 21 were accepted it would mean that any local authority, having once gone comprehensive, would be tied to that scheme for all time. It would be like one Parliament binding its

successor—something which cannot be done. Such a move would mean the end of section 13 notices. Once an authority had gone comprehensive there could not be section 13 notices to alter anything. No Parliament could enact such legislation.
Once the measure is enacted it will mean that areas which are happy with their comprehensive schools—and there is a vast number of such areas, I presume—will be able to keep such schools. Areas which are now selective can, if they wish, go comprehensive. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them. It happened before 1976 and it will happen again. It also means that if any area, having considered the matter, decides that nonselective schools are unsuccessful and wishes to bring back some form of selection, it can put up section 13 notices to do so.
The amendment is the buffer. It is saying, in effect " At last we have found a scheme which can never be altered and which all men will use from now on. Because it is so perfect it is to remain for all time." It always seems to me that Labour Members are worried about the comprehensive schools in many areas, but they do not seem to be able to risk offending public opinion and the elected authorities that keep their comprehensive schools.
We cannot accept amendment No. 18. My right hon. and learned Friend has already referred to Tameside. On amendment No. 21, we cannot tie local authorities down to what they must do in the future. The Bill is not an attack upon comprehensive schools. It is purely giving back to local authorities the right to run the schools that they want. If a comprehensive school is successful in an area, it will obviously have the backing of the public and remain there.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had hoped to make my point in an intervention, but as the Minister did not give way I should like to make it now.
It seems odd that the Conservative Party has shown such haste to encourage local authorities to renege on proposals for comprehensive education while, at the same time, when a local authority has wished to go ahead with a scheme, it has put so many obstacles in the way of that


authority's doing so. That is a clear indication of the Conservative Party's attitude, which is anti and critical of comprehensive education.
I must press the Minister on the question of local authorities going back on comprehensive proposals. It would have been very helpful if the Minister had accepted amendment No. 21, but I hope he will concede that once children have been allocated to a comprehensive school and have completed their first year, reorganisation should not deprive them of the opportunity of completing their education in a comprehensive school. What is causing most anxiety at the moment is the worry that once children have commenced their secondary education, some reorganisation will take place that will deprive them of the opportunity to complete their education within that scheme.
Throughout the period during which schools were going comprehensive, one of the fundamental principles was that once children were allocated to a grammar school they were allowed to complete their education at that school. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to guarantee that those children who start at a comprehensive school will be able to complete their education there even if the local authority comes forward with proposals to change the system.
I know that Tory Members are not particularly keen to listen to the debate. I should have thought they would take a hint from my hon. Friends and just read the debate in Hansard tomorrow, rather than stay here chattering. They are not taking very much interest in the debate, even though some of us want to probe one or two matters.
I feel that if we cannot get assurances on amendment No. 21 we ought seriously to consider dividing the House.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall be very brief. I rise only to meet the point made by the Minister. There is nothing in the amendment or in anything that we have said during the debates on this Bill or on any other that could reasonably lead anyone to believe that we want to tie for all time—to use the hon. Gentleman's words—the system, to immobilise it, to freeze it, to pickle it, or to put it to sleep. We have no wish to anaesthetise the comprehensive school system, now

or at any other time. Nor is it the case that if the amendment were accepted there could be no more section 13 notices.
Let me read the amendment again. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] I do not know whether it is the same with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the more the Tories say " No ", the more I feel " Yes ". The more they say " Yes ", the more I feel " No ".
The amendment says " Nothing in this Act "—no other Act is involved. The purpose of the Bill, the Under-Secretary says, is simply to restore freedoms. If it is only that simple process we have enough confidence in existing comprehensive schemes to know that the initiative to try to destroy them or, which is more important, to reintroduce selective procedures, will come not from the parents or the pupils. It could come, as we have seen it illustrated in Erith and, in a different form, in Tameside in 1976, from Tory politicians at local level who want to superimpose their own particular educational perversion on an area.
2.15 am
To try to prevent this measure and no other—and I emphasise that—from being used for that purpose we are seeking to make the amendment. If the Under-Secretary wishes us to believe that there is a simple libertarian purpose, inspired not by any great political zeal, but by a democratic conviction, behind this Bill, it is the easiest thing in the world for him to convince us that that was and remains his purpose. He has only to accept the amendment which says that whatever may happen in the future, whatever temperature change may overtake education, whatever new fad may arise, whether there are new black papers, white papers or sky blue pink papers, however great the eminence of the Under-Secretary in the councils of the Tory Party, whether he is replaced by another hon. Gentleman with rather more progressive ideas—I do not think that he is here at the moment—whatever the prevailing orthodoxy of education, this Bill will not be used to invite local education authorities to return to selective schemes. That is the simple reassurance we seek.
We have confidence in the non-selective system. We are not worried about that. There is no reason why the Minister cannot give us that reassurance. I hope that even now he will be willing to accept


the amendment on the basis on which we have proposed it and give the parents and the pupils, as well as the teachers who are affected by the indeterminateness of educational schemes and the effects of the Bill, the assurance they deserve.
If the Under-Secretary will accept the amendment he will undertake a final act of generosity which will endear the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State to us to a greater extent than he ever dreamed in his more populist moods.

Amendment negatived.

Bill to be read the Third time this day.

Orders of the Day — LUNCHEON VOUCHERS (TAX CONCESSIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

2.18 a.m.

Mr. John Heddle: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to enable me to raise the question of tax concessions on luncheon vouchers. I had thought that we should be discussing this matter around breakfast time, possibly as part of a legislative sandwich as the Opposition continued their filibuster through the night on the Education Bill.
My proposal is that employees may receive luncheon vouchers to the value of 50p per day without incurring a liability to tax. The proposal does not require any change in the law. I put it forward because the case for an increase in the tax free limit is undeniable in principle. The current extra-statutory concession was fixed in 1948, when the average earnings of an office employee in London and the South-East were less than £7 a week. I accept that the Government's prudent Budget strategy allows no scope to increase the limit unless and until we overcome our temporary economic ills.
I therefore seek to remind the House that there are thousands of Miss Smiths, clerks, clerk-typists, shorthand typists and secretaries—many of whom live in my constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth and who commute daily to Birmingham by British Rail—who live in hope that one day before too long, a sympathetic

Government will amend the regulations to extend tax relief on luncheon vouchers to enable them to have a proper meal, so that they may not feel discriminated against compared with their friends and colleagues who work in larger industrial concerns which provide canteens for them. I have no doubt that many hon. Members on each side of the House will have encountered similar comments from constituents who live in commuter areas such as mine.
The idea of the luncheon voucher, as you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, originated in the period towards the end of the Second World War. At that time industry began more and more to introduce canteens on to its premises to enable employees to be adequately fed, and thereby to increase output that was so vitally necessary in wartime, and, once peacetime had arrived, to manufacture the goods that the nation then so desperately needed. Indeed, we still need those goods desperately today.
It thus came about that large industrial concerns could afford to provide canteens for their employees, but small firms obviously felt left out. In order to compete in the labour market they had to provide facilities for their staff, as their larger industrial competitors did. Hence the idea of the luncheon voucher was born.
Because it was clearly unfair that those who received luncheon vouchers should be taxed while those who received an equal benefit from the industrial canteen should not, this extra-statutory concession was granted by the Treasury in 1946 at a level of 2s. 3d., which was raised in 1948–31 years ago—to 3s. 0d., or 15p, without incurring liability to tax. This figure of 15p has remained unchanged since 1948. A pint of beer then cost 7d. Today it costs 42p. A newspaper then cost a penny. Today it costs 10p. The present value of that 15p in 1948 is 93p.
Currently, about 220 million vouchers are issued each year, worth about £40 million. These are issued to about 1 million employees, by about 20,000 small business men. The only thing that they each have in common is that they work in establishments that are too small to have canteens—the sort of firms that are the life blood, the veins and the arteries of British commercial life, such as


solicitors, printers, accountants, small industrialists, and also small branches of larger concerns, including organisations such as the Bank of England, the British Airports Authority, the Greater London Council and the Ministry of Defence.
As I have indicated, this concession is now more than 30 years old. Since then, as all hon. Members must surely agree, inflation has struck savagely. This, of course, is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of pure and simple equity. The recipient of a subsidised canteen meal can receive whatever subsidy the employers choose to grant and is not assessed in any way for one iota of tax on the benefits received for eating more cheaply than he or she would otherwise have done.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, certainly needs no reminding that the subject of tax concession on luncheon vouchers has received regular—almost monotonous—consideration by the Government of the day for many years. He will no doubt remember the debate on the Finance Bill in 1972, when the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) moved an amendment seeking to increase the tax limit on luncheon vouchers from 15p to 31p, which was then the level recommended by the Confederation of British Industry. That amendment was defeated by 31 votes.
In 1977, the right hon. Gentleman, then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to one of a stream of written questions over the years on the subject of tax-free concessions on luncheon vouchers, said that no decision had been taken to increase the tax-free limit on luncheon vouchers but that the concession continued to be kept under regular review. This debate serves to remind the House that that review is, from the Miss Smiths' point of view, a long time a-coming.
Also in 1977, my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brook) presented a petition to the House containing 9,500 signatures, the names of Miss Smiths in this part of London who enjoy a tax-free concession of a mere 15p on their luncheon vouchers.
I agree that the first priority of the Government is to reduce the burden of taxation at all levels across the board. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer has begun to do it with marked effect, and of course I agree that all other claims, such as the one that I am putting forward now, must, of necessity, take their place in the list of priorities. But I do not agree with the arguments that have been advanced in the past to resist any change in the existing regulation. It has been argued that to extend the tax concession would be administratively expensive. Where is the additional administrative expense? Where is the additional administrative machinery necessary simply to deal with two figures—15p to 50p? I cannot see that a further burden would be placed upon the bureaucracy by the Government giving way on this point.
Nor am I persuaded that there is any element of unfairness to those who benefit neither from luncheon vouchers nor from subsidised canteen meals. All employees should receive fair tax treatment, and whether an employer chooses to provide his employees with the benefits should not in any way affect the tax principle involved. To argue that to change the tax concession would be unfair to those who do not enjoy such concessions is surely to argue that tax relief is unfair to those who do not hold life insurance policies or mortgages. I do not accept that case either.
The year 1948 is a long time ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the economic bridge since then. Then it was agreed that the luncheon voucher user should receive the same tax benefits as the canteen user. In the last 31 years the canteen user has continued to be totally untaxed on all benefits received, whereas the luncheon voucher user has lost almost all benefits that the regulation once gave him.
I believe that it is right to speak up for the silent work force employed in small firms, because in the main these people do not have organisations to speak up on their behalf, and I believe, too, that it is right to speak up for those small firms without whose contribution to the national weal our economy just would not survive. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for attending at this very late hour to hear again about this anomaly in our tax system, and I hope that in the fullness of time he will find it possible to amend the existing regulation.

2.28 a.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): I rise with considerable pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend, who, with great acuteness, has picked on a subject which we did not debate during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, although, as he reminded us, it has engaged the attention of Finance Bill Committees on numerous occasions. He referred to the 1972 Finance Bill Committee. I entered the House in 1970, and 1972 has been the only year since I arrived when I did not serve on the Finance Bill Committee. Thus, I did not have the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) press the point on that occasion. There would have been an added piquancy there since he subsequently became Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I have no doubt that on numerous occasions he resisted blandishments from those of us now on this side of the House.
This is a subject which attracts considerable public interest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) has done a signal service in raising it tonight. In the course of our debate in Committee on the Finance Bill, although we did not touch on this point, the question of benefits in kind, fringe benefits or perks, was touched on, and I must return later to the general principles which inform this Government's approach to the subject.
Perhaps I may start by emphasising that in law—this was implicit in what my hon. Friend said—the cash value of a luncheon voucher is taxable as part of the emoluments of the employee receiving it but, as my hon. Friend said, the practice of not taxing luncheon vouchers has prevailed since 1946, and the precise figure at which this concession has been fixed has existed since 1948.
In his lucid and articulate way, my hon. Friend has given the history of luncheon vouchers. My brief tells me that the habit started in the City of London just after the war, when a number of employers made special arrangements with certain restaurants for the provision of meals for their employees. Whether they were unable in the circumstances of the time to organise canteens I do not know, but obviously the practice has grown considerably since then. I accept

that there must be many of my hon. Friend's constituents who enjoy luncheon vouchers today. It is not confined to the South-East but must be fairly widespread.
The concession, for that is what it is—an extra-statutory concession, as my hon. Friend said—has been justified on the basis that the provision of luncheon vouchers did no more than put employees of concerns which did not have canteen facilities in roughly the same position as workers who enjoyed subsidised canteens. The employee who gets a cheap meal in a canteen is not regarded as liable to tax on what he saves by comparison with what he would have to pay in a restaurant, and the luncheon voucher was arguably the equivalent of an employer's subsidy to a canteen meal, although it has never been intended that the value of the luncheon voucher should be enough to cover the full cost of a restaurant meal. I think it right to emphasise that.
Although it may be a matter of academic interest at this hour, the present extra-statutory concession relating to luncheon vouchers was given in a parliamentary answer on 20 January 1959. The precise conditions are that the luncheon vouchers must be non-transferable and be used for meals only; that where any restriction is placed on their issue to employees, they must be available to lower-paid staff; and the value of the vouchers issued to an employee must not exceed 15p for each full working day. The value of any voucher or part of a voucher which does not comply with these conditions is still subject to income tax.
Perhaps it is almost nostalgic to go back to the past and recall that when luncheon vouchers were first issued 3s. a day was on the generous side compared with a normal canteen subsidy on each meal served, and for some years afterwards it was felt that 15p was broadly equivalent to the subsidy element in canteen meals. In view of increases in the cost of food since then, it may well be that this is no longer an exact equivalence.
The Inland Revenue has done certain researches into the value of canteen subsidies, and though there is no very precise figure I can tell the House that an Industrial Society Survey in 1975 found an average subsidy per employee of about


£24 a year. I am not particularly numerate, but even at this hour of the morning one can calculate that a daily luncheon voucher at 15p is roughly the equivalent of £40. That was four years ago, and, assuming that the annual subsidy for a canteen meal has increased slightly, it is certainly not much more than the luncheon voucher figure.
It cannot be argued that a person who enjoys a canteen meal has an advantage over a luncheon voucher holder or vice versa. There are, however, a wide range of people who do not enjoy the benefit of canteen or luncheon vouchers. We can debate whether a good employer should be encouraged to extend the luncheon voucher practice, but I am diffident to suggest that.
The subject of the concession has frequently been raised in the House. A new clause was put down for Standing Committee debate but was not selected. Other hon. Members who have stood at the Dispatch Box have said that it should be subject to regular review, and in 1979 we are reviewing it once again. I hope that I shall not give a monotonous reply, as has previously been the case.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that the value of a luncheon voucher, which is unchanged in relation to a canteen meal, is somehow the same today as it was in 1959, or has the argument changed between 1959 and today?

Mr. Rees: A survey in 1975 showed that, on average, the element of subsidy in canteen meals—and employees are required to pay a modest contribution—was about £27 a year. Inevitably, that figure is imprecise. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) is characteristically generous to his company employees and will doubtless correct me and say that in his company it is much more. I can only give the House such material as is available from the Inland Revenue. There is a rough equivalence between the subsidy element in canteen meals and the value of luncheon vouchers, taking an average working week of five days and 50 working weeks a year. It is a crude comparison, but the only people at a disadvantage are those who get neither luncheon vouchers nor canteen meals.
I shall not talk of administrative convenience, because I agree that the change can be made at a stroke. If one believes in extra-statutory concessions, it can easily be extended. My hon. Friend has modestly said the increase could be 50p, but if we are adjusting for the fall in the value of money it will be more likely 64p—and I pay tribute to his modesty.
I prefer to put the case to the House in a different way, and it is relevant in the light of the Finance Bill. Against the background of substantial cuts in direct taxation, is it right that we should increase the value of fringe benefits? Recently, when I was pressed by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), I said that employers should be encouraged to remunerate their employees in cash rather than kind. That is the way ahead. As far as possible we should try to prune out perquisites. It would be healthier for the economy, industry and the whole social balance.
If one looks at the case that my hon. Friend has advanced so persuasively, one sees that there is a strong argument for it. However, if it is examined against the background of what the Government are trying to do to bring down tax rates until they are comparable with those of our European competitors one sees the matter in a different light. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend whether this is the appropriate moment to increase the value of luncheon vouchers.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to consider the issue of luncheon vouchers and the level at which they are set. He advanced his case with extreme eloquence, moderation and persuasion, but I hope that at the end of the day he will recognise that this is a historic anomaly. I do not think that it is bound up with the health of the small business sector. As the House knows, the Government are doing a considerable amount for small businesses.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: I remind my hon. and learned Friend that luncheon vouchers are still at the level that they were in 1948. He has produced a figure from the 1975 survey, but does he agree that the position of those receiving these vouchers is aggravated by the fact that in receiving 15p


they are worse off than those who enjoy the facility of subsidised canteens at their work places?

Mr. Rees: I was not resting my case on the 1975 survey. I had said that obviously the figure needed to be adjusted. I was simply trying to demonstrate that on the material available to the Inland Revenue there is a rough equivalence between subsidised meals and luncheon vouchers.
I rest my general case on the fact that we should not follow this route of benefiting employees but should consider, against the background of fairly considerably tax cuts, whether it is necessary or wise to revalorise fringe benefits, even

though they have respectable antecedents and were justified when introduced in 1948.
I think that we should treat this as a historic anomaly. I am not suggesting that we should abolish luncheon vouchers, but I wonder whether employers should be encouraged to give their employees cash rewards rather than rewards in kind. Although we are grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, I think that we should leave the matter where it is and treat this as an interesting historic fiscal anomaly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Three o'clock a.m.